'आदर्श से भी बड़ा है अंधेरी जमीन घोटाला!'

मुंबई: कांग्रेस के दिग्गज नेता और केंद्रीय मंत्री राजीव शुक्ला की पत्नी अनुराधा प्रसाद की संस्था को दिए गए भूखंड का मामला जोर पकड़ता जा रहा है। बीजेपी नेता किरीट सोमैया ने सोमवार को मीडिया को घोटाले से संबंधित कुछ दस्तावेज बांटे। उन्होंने इसे आदर्श घोटाले से बड़ा घोटाला करार दिया। रकम की बात की जाए तो सोमैया ने 100 करोड़ रुपये का घोटाला बताया है।

सोमवार को सोमैया ने इस मसले को एक चरण और आगे बढ़ाया। उन्होंने आरोप लगाया कि नियम कानून को तह पर रखकर कलेक्टर ने मंत्री की पत्नी की संस्था को भूखंड दिया। उन्होंने भूखंड आबंटन करने वाले कलेक्टर पर भी मामला दर्ज करने की मांग की। उन्होंने मुख्यमंत्री पृथ्वीराज चव्हाण से मांग की कि भूखंड के इस श्रीखंड का जिन-जिन अधिकारियों, नेताओं और मंत्रियों ने स्वाद लिया है उन सभी पर कार्रवाई की जाए।

सोमैया ने कहा कि जब सीएम ने विधानसभा की बैठक में मंत्रालय की जली फाइलों को फिर से बनाने की घोषणा की थी, तो फिर शुक्ला की फाइल क्यूं नहीं बनाई गई ?
साभार:
नवभारत टाइम्स | Dec 10, 2013, 04.37AM IST
http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other-news/Andheri-land-scam-is-bigger-than-Adarsh-land-scam/articleshow/27147081.cms

Rajiv Shukla Land Scam: How school for poor was nixed to clear MP’s IB school

Five government departments, including the chief minister’s office, bent over backwards to gift two prime plots of land in Andheri worth over Rs 100 crore for less than Rs 1 lakh to a trust run by Union minister Rajiv Shukla’s wife.

Mumbai Mirror in its November 29 edition first reported how the plots near Country Club in Andheri (west) were allotted at concessional rates applicable in 1976 to BAG Films Education Society (BFES) to start a school. Shukla’s wife Anuradha Prasad is the chairman of BFES and the minister himself was its secretary till when the application for land allotment was made in 2007.

While one of the two plots was reserved for a primary municipal school and the other for a general utility playground, every rule was flouted to allot them to BFES, even though its application clearly stated that it wanted to start an IB or ICSE school. On Monday, Suburban Collector Sanjay Deshmukh and Additional Chief Secretary, revenue, Dr Swadheen S Kshatriya promised to look into the allotment that robbed the city of a municipalschoolandaplayground.“The issue has been brought to our notice after your newspaper report. We will look into it,” Kshatriya said.

This newspaper has retraced the entire paper trail between 2007, when BSEF applied for the plot, and 2008, when the allotment was made. Documents in our possession show not only did none of the government departments that dealt with the application raise any questions, the proposal was pushed through by the then chief minister late Vilasrao Deshmukh.

The BFES application travelled from the Revenue and Forest Department, which owned the land, and moved through the Urban Development, Finance and School Education departments, but does not seem to have undergone any scrutiny. Even the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation cleared it in a jiffy, willingly sacrificing a municipal school that could have benefited hundreds of poor children in the neighbourhood.

Shukla on Monday told this newspaperthathehasspokentoChiefMinister Prithviraj Chavan and offered to return both the plots. “I have told the CM that if anything inappropriate is found in the land allotment, state shouldtakeit(theplots)back.Weanyway intended to construct a school for poor and needy residing there.”

When it was pointed out that the documents clearly show the plan was to start an IB or ICSE school, he said: “That was the plan. Eventually we decided to construct a school for poor.”

The BFES moved the application for the plot sometime in 2007 and in September the same year the divisional commissioner, who reports to the Revenue Department, cleared the allotment. His only recommendation was the Urban Development Department be consulted as the plot was reserved for a primary school. In November, the UD Department wrote back that the two plots could be allotted to BFES after seeking a nod from the BMC. Having received the green signal from the UD Department, the Revenue Department sought details from the suburban collector’s office. While the suburban collector’s office was processing the information, BFES wrote to the state that it had entered into a JV with RIMS International, which runs schools and colleges in Mumbai and Pune. The letter said RIMS had all the clearances from the State School Education Department and was equipped to start a school.

As soon as the Revenue Department received this information, a letter was shot off to the School Education Department and the BMC, seeking their clearances. In February 2008, BMC’s chief engineer of the Development and Planning department wrote to state that they had no objection if the plot reserved for a municipal primary school was handed over to the BSEF.

In March 2008, the School Education Department too gave its nod on the rounds that RIMs was certified by them and that BSEF was a financially healthy.

With all concerned departments clearing the allotment of the plot meant for the school, now arose the question of the adjoining plot reserved for a sports complex. BSEF wanted to use this plot as a play ground for its school. When the revenue department sought an opinion from Sports Department, the latter offered no resistance, stating its clearance was not even required.

When the process of deciding a price for the two plots started, a letter signedbyvariousrevenueofficialswas issued in April 2008, stating that the chief minister’s secretary had issued instructions to clear the proposal urgently. It went on to state that since the cost of the land was Rs 39,000 per sq meter, concessions would have to be given after getting a nod from Finance Department.

In May, the Finance Department stated that land rates applicable in 1976 should be applied (Rs 140 per sq meter). Chief minister (Vilasrao Deshmukh) and revenue minister (Narayan Rane) soon cleared the proposal. But that was not all. The Town Planning Department suggested that the school plot could be given at 25 per cent of the rate prevailing in 1976 and playground plot at 10 per cent of the rates prevailing in 1976. It was decided that while school plot would be given on ownership basis, playground plot would be given on 15 years lease.

On September 9, 2008, the two plots were allotted to BSEF -- Rs 98,735 for the school plot and Rs 6,309 for a 15-year lease on the plot they would use as a playground.

Ashoke Pandit, convenor of Save Open Spaces, who has filed a complaint against the land allotment with the chief minister’s office said, “The entire land deal reeks of corruption. There is no municipal school or playground for public in the vicinity. BMC could have claimed both the plots and put them to good use.”
Courtesy:
Yogesh Sadhwani and Yogesh Naik mirrorfeedback@timesgroup.com
TWEETS @_MumbaiMirror
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=MIRRORNEW&BaseHref=MMIR/2013/12/03&PageLabel=3&EntityId=Ar00302&ViewMode=HTML

Housing Scam: Oberoi Splendour residents move court against builder

Trouble's brewing at Andheri's Oberoi Splendour towers, considered one of the plushest addresses in the western suburbs, after an association representing about 500 flat owners moved court against the builder alleging construction deficiencies and financial irregularities amounting to more than Rs 600 crore.

The civil suit filed by the flat owners' representative, Mohit Chandra Bhardwaj, also mentions alleged violations of the development control rules under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act.

Oberoi Splendour in Andheri (E), off Western Express Highway, comprises 1,296 apartments in six 27-storey wings. The complex boasts of amenities such as clubhouse, swimming pool, sauna facilities, squash courts and a jogging track. According to the builder, Oberoi Realty, a twoand-a-half BHK apartment in the complex demands a price of Rs 2.75 crore.

The residents and Oberoi Realty are at loggerheads over a 27-storey tower that has come up adjacent Oberoi Splendour. The tower, named Oberoi Grande, has 156 apartments which are all up for sale, and the builder has promised the buyers access to the amenities at Oberoi Splendour.

"Just imagine what will happen when an additional 700 people start using the amenities meant exclusively for us," said Bhardwaj, adding that the jogging track, the clubhouse and the parking area were not large enough to accommodate so many people. The residents have further alleged that the new tower has come up on the plot that was supposed to be their recreational space.

According to Bhardwaj, the developer is constructing two additional buildings with no compound walls to separate them from Oberoi Splendour. "We are really worried as the facilities are limited, and the new structures don't comply with the initial plan," he said.

The residents used the Right to Information (RTI) Act and accessed the plans the builder had submitted to the BMC, and the civic body approvals, following which they hired an architect, Shrikant Hadke, to inspect the complex and point out discrepancies in construction.

The architect's report says the residents have been given flats smaller than promised, a charge the builder denies. According to the residents, the BMC documents say each flat has a built-up area of 893 sq ft, while the purchase agreements mention the builtup area as 987 sq ft.

The residents further allege that the size of the bedroom, according to their agreements with the builder, was supposed to be 96.84 sq ft as opposed to the actual size (88.77 sq ft).

The developer, however, said the residents' allegations were baseless. "We can only deliver what was promised, and not according to what they expect. Anyone is welcome to come and measure the apartments to ensure that everything is according to the plan," an Oberoi Realty spokesperson said.

Demanding that the occupation certificate to Oberoi Grande be withheld, the residents alleged that the builder forced them to pay for the parking slots, in complete violation of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act. "The builder cannot sell the parking space unless it is utilised under the floor space index (FSI)," a resident said, adding that the basement parkings are free of FSI, and therefore cannot be sold. They also alleged that they haven't been provided with office space, freight lift or refuge area on each floor, all of which was promised.

To this, the Oberoi Realty spokesperson said, "As per the flat purchase agreements, a builder charges a lumpsum amount which includes exclusive rights to parking slots and other shared facilities."

Regarding the promised amenities that haven't been provided, the spokesperson said, "The plot housing Oberoi Splendour is spread across 18 acres, and there were a lot of development projects planned. It is common knowledge that builders are granted Intimation of Disapproval (IOD), which is necessary to develop the plot, in phases. As and when we got the plans approved, we went ahead with the construction of the buildings on the premises."

The residents, however, said there were large-scale financial irregularities while executing the flat transfer agreements, and the sale of parking spaces after getting the occupation certificate. They further alleged that the developer made money out of lease agreements allowing ATM kiosks on the complex premises, installing mobile phone towers, and renting out the premises for film shoots. "Money earned from such deals should have been deposited in the society accounts," a resident said.

The builder's spokesperson, however, said the mobile phone towers were installed following requests from the residents, and Oberoi Realty didn't get any money from the telecom companies.

During the hearing on Friday, the Dindoshi city civil court asked the residents' association to file a fresh complaint or amend the names of the complainants, after the builder's advocate Behru Choudhary pointed out that the association was not a registered body. The matter has been scheduled for May 8.
Courtesy:
Mumbai Mirror | May 4, 2013, 07.30 AM IST
By: Arita Sarkar
http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/crime/Oberoi-Splendour-residents-move-court-against-builder/articleshow/19876425.cms