Ideal Way To Make A Scam Vanish

The army is not amused. It has come out with a detailed note alleging that the commission ignored crucial evidence placed before it and relied instead on a dodgy anonymous letter and many “highly suspect grounds” to arrive at the absurd conclusion. The note has been handed over to the defence ministry, which is expected to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

The action began last month, when an interim report of the two-member commission of Justice J.A. Patil (retd) and P. Subramanyam, a retired chief secretary of the state, was tabled in the assembly on April 17. Originally, the commission had been set 13 terms of reference. But it chose to address no more than two. Clearly in a hurry, the government had sought an interim report, saying legislators wanted the inquiry expedited. Already, pressure was mounting on investigators: the Bombay High Court had recently pulled up the CBI for not arresting some of the 13 accused in the fir, among them former chief minister Ashok Chavan, who was forced to resign in the wake of the scam. As soon as the report was tabled, Chavan—and Vilasrao Deshmukh, another former chief minister implicated in the scam—started citing it to back their claims of innocence. And mlas of the Congress and the NCP started proclaiming there was no wrong-doing. Reason enough to suspect the hurry might have been motivated.

Justice J.A. Patil (right) and P. Subramanyam, a former chief secretary, concluded the Adarsh plot isn’t defence land.

Be that as it may, the army note focuses on the reasoning and interpretation the commission has deployed; naturally, it says these are erroneous. The army’s contention before the commission was that it has been in possession of the land for more than a 100 years, since the time the land was with the British army. The Maharashtra government, on the other hand, had said the land in question did not even exist before 1973! It said Block 6 of the Back Bay Reclamation Scheme, on which Adarsh building stands, was reclaimed from the sea in the prolonged process through which the original seven islands of Bombay became what the city is today, though there is no definite evidence presented as to when exactly the reclamation happened.

In dealing with these disputations, the commission, the army note says, has made a “wrong interpretation” of the Government of India Act of 1935, dealing with “property, contracts, liabilities and suits” of British times. In the Act, the roster of 12 entries pertaining to Bombay does not include the Adarsh plot. Ergo, it did not belong to the army—this is the commission’s interpretation. But, the army contends in the note, the plot was not meant to be on that roster at all: it only listed properties that were to be retained for future use of the Centre—not those already in its possession. And since the Adarsh plot was in use then, it could not have been on that list.

The note counters the commission’s conclusion thus: “If one were to believe this interpretation...then all the lands occupied by the army and navy in Colaba would not be defence lands because they are not part of these 12 entries. In fact, all lands occupied by the defence forces since British times in old cantonments of Ambala, Agra, Jullunder, Pune, Devlali etc do not find mention in this notification and hence are not defence lands according to this interpretation.”

The army note also says the commission conveniently ignored evidence of the ministry of defence’s possession of the land since 1940. One evidence is a letter dated December 12, 1989, from the Mumbai collector to the state’s additional chief secretary for revenue and forests that says: “...it has been decided to refer this matter to the revenue and forests department as the land is in possession of the military since 1940.” Another such document is a minutes sheet of a meeting chaired by the chief secretary of Maharashtra on December 22, 1989, which says “...(the) land is in physical possession of military authorities since 1942.” Despite this, the commission has held that the land was not only not occupied, it was not even there—it was under water. And when exactly was the land reclaimed? The commission hasn’t cared to determine that, but draws on flimsy evidence—an unsigned, anonymous note—to conclude that the strip of land on which Adarsh stands was not reclaimed in the normal course but was filled up for the widening of Cuffe Parade road. Thus, it casts a sceptical eye on the army’s claim that it had been making use of the land.

The commission blames the defence authorities for not having asserted their right to the land when it was handed over to Adarsh society. Even in this, it has ignored vital evidence: Saurav Ray, a defence estate officer, had written several letters in 2003 to the collector objecting to the allotment. Most egregiously, the commission has ignored the fact that, from 1999 to 2010, five consecutive general-officers commanding for Maharashtra and Gujarat, the seniormost officers for raising objections to the land allotment, were allotted flats in Adarsh— “a classic case of protectors turning poachers”, says the note. It goes on to say: “It seems the report is desperate to somehow prove the land in question was not used by the defence ministry.”

That desperation, it seems, has been transmitted from somewhere up high.

***

No Problem At All?

Commission concludes

• The land on which Adarsh was built never belonged to the army
• The land, part of Back Bay Reclamation Scheme, was under water till the 1960-70s
• The MoD did not assert its right over the land at the time of the allotment.

The Army Claims

• In possession of the land for over 100 years
• Letter of Mumbai collector in 1989 says land in possession with military since 1940
• Recorded minutes of a meeting headed by chief secretary says land in physical possession of military authorities since 1942
• Then defence estate officer objected to the allotment in 2003

Unanswered Questions

• Why was the reclamation record of Adarsh land not produced?
• Why no evidence was furnished by Maharashtra government to establish ownership?
• When was the land reclaimed? lWhy did the commission rely on an anonymous note to conclude the plot wasn’t reclaimed in the normal course but later, for road-widening?
• Why hasn’t the commission taken note of the allotment of flats to GoCs, which should raise suspicion?