Shinde in trouble as Nagpur HC remarks on illegal plot allotment

Both houses of the state legislature witnessed an uproar followed by adjournments on Tuesday over the issue, which is likely to dominate the ongoing winter session. On behalf of the MVA, Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray, who was present in Nagpur, demanded that Shinde step down

Chief minister Eknath Shinde is in trouble following strictures passed by the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court against an allotment of a plot in Nagpur when Shinde was urban development minister in the previous government. The Opposition tried to corner the CM in the state legislature on Tuesday, demanding his resignation. Shinde, however, said he had done nothing wrong and had followed the set norms of 2007 and 2009 in the allotment.

MUMBAI, INDIA - JULY 20, 2016: Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde at Vidhan Bhavanin Mumbai, India, on Wednesday, July 20, 2016. (Photo by Kunal Patil/ Hindustan Times) (Hindustan Times)

Both houses of the state legislature witnessed an uproar followed by adjournments on Tuesday over the issue, which is likely to dominate the ongoing winter session. On behalf of the MVA, Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray, who was present in Nagpur, demanded that Shinde step down till the HC gave its verdict.

In response to a PIL, the high court on Monday had passed an order questioning Shinde’s decision to direct the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) to give away over 4.5 acres of land meant for the poor to private individuals despite the matter being sub-judice. A division bench of Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice M W Chandwani said, “If any order of regularisation, as claimed by the newspapers, has been passed, then we would direct the authorities to maintain status quo… till the next date.” The court has fixed the next hearing for January 4 next year.

The PIL alleged that as urban development minister, Shinde had asked the NIT to give 4.5 acres of land meant for poor slum dwellers to 16 private persons, some of whom were builders. The NIT got less than ₹2 crore for the land worth over ₹83 crore, it was pointed out. Significantly, the land at Mouza Harpur on Umred Road had been acquired by the NIT in 1981 for the eradication of slums.

The HC-appointed amicus curiae, Nagpur-based lawyer Anand Parchure, filed a pursis alleging that Shinde’s order during the pendency of the petition in the HC amounted to interference in the administration of justice. “Appropriate orders in that regard may kindly be passed as also the matter can be taken up for final hearing,” Parchure said in his opinion. The bench ordered the state to submit its response to this petition while ordering status quo.

The Opposition chalked out a strategy to corner the Shinde-Fadnavis government in a meeting on Monday evening. Key leaders from the MVA staged a protest on the steps of Vidhan Bhavan, and immediately after the commencement of business in the legislative council, demanded Shinde’s resignation. Ambadas Danve, leader of the Opposition, said that in view of the high court’s remarks, Shinde had no moral right to continue being CM. Later, the entire Opposition trooped to the well of the House and shouted anti-government slogans.

In response to the charges, Shinde declared in the House that the land allotment was done as per a 2007 order by charging the development fees specified in an order issued in 2009. “The Nagpur Improvement Authority had regularised 34 plots, similar to the one for which an appeal was held before me. The 34 plots were regularised in 2007 by charging a development fee as per the 2007 order. When the case of the 35th plot came before me as urban development minister in 2020, I gave orders to allot the plot following the orders applied to the previous allotment. I did not do anything wrong.”

Shinde, however, said that he was not aware that the high court, while hearing the appeal, had appointed a committee to decide the dispute related to the allotment of the plots. “When I passed the order in April 2021, I was not aware of the recommendations of the committee,” he said. “At the time of the order, there was no stay on the allotment. I was informed about the development in the court last week, after which I cancelled my order of last year.”