This story is from July 22, 2015

HC questions plot allotment to Kadam

Fourteen years after the then Maharashtra government allotted prime land in Kolhapur to the Bharati Vidyapeeth, run by former Congress minister Patangrao Kadam, the Bombay high court has questioned the decision to give away the plot.
HC questions plot allotment to Kadam
MUMBAI: Fourteen years after the then Maharashtra government allotted prime land in Kolhapur to the Bharati Vidyapeeth, run by former Congress minister Patangrao Kadam, the Bombay high court has questioned the decision to give away the plot. A division bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Revati Dere admitted a petition filed by Kolhapur resident Pandurang Adsule, challenging the allotment to a private institution without calling for tenders.

“Prima facie, we find that allotment of a valuable land has been made to the Bharati Vidyapeeth without following a fair and transparent procedure,” the judges said.
The court has scheduled the matter for hearing on August 11, and has granted Kadam, the educational institution and the state time to file their replies.
Advocate Mayuresh Mogdi, counsel for the petitioner, said the allotment was made in violation of rules. The plot was initially reserved for rehabilitation of persons suffering from leprosy. The reservation was lifted in 2001 and the land was allotted to the institution. The petitioner said though, as per government records, the value of the land was around Rs 1,500 per square metre, the institute was told to deposit only Rs 20.5 lakh or a rate of Rs 250 per square metre.
The petitioner alleged, “The state failed to appreciate that Bharati Vidyapeeth is an unaided private institution, whereas there are several other institutions in the locality working for pubic welfare and non-profit motives.”
Adsule had initially filed a petition in 2006 and the high court, in its order in 2008, had told the collector to decide on the objections raised by the petitioner. The collector rejected the petitioner’s plea in 2008, ruling that the allotment was made as per rules. Adusle then filed a second petition. The high court rejected the contention that there was a delay in filing the petition. It said the delay had been explained and there was no material provided by the state that the collector’s order had been communicated to the petitioner.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA