Issue of security is "sham and bogus": Adarsh Society tells HC

The society, which became controversial following the allegations that its construction violated environmental norms among other things, has moved High Court challenging cancellation of occupation certificate and power, water cut-off by civic authorities last month.

The hearing was adjourned to December 21 today as Union government wanted time to respond to Adarsh's affidavit. Society's affidavit says that there are "colonies of residential units occupied by thousands of civilians known as Ganesh Murti Nagar and Geeta Nagar within defence boundary." and "There are places of worship within the defence area which are regularly visited by civilians."

"Hence the issue of security (raised by Union) is absolutely sham and bogus," the society says. At the last hearing, division bench of Justices B H Marlapalle and U D Salvi had asked Adarsh's lawyer "exactly when Defence ministry handed land to you," as the 1999 application by society seeking the plot mentions that it was earlier with defence.

But today's affidavit claims that land always belonged to the state and not to the defence or Union.

Further, if Union government feels that restrictions need to be imposed from security point of view on constructions in the vicinity of defence area a declaration has to be made to that effect in official gazette which was never done here, affidavit says.

The defence ministry has not produced a single document to show that the land belonged to it, the affidavit, filed by Brigadier (retd) M M Wanchu, society's president, says.

"All the contentions of the media in relation to the right of military are motivated and appear to be at the behest of people who did not get flats in Adarsh. However, Collector Mumbai consulted the local military authorities for the views before allotting land to Society in 2004," the affidavit states.

It also alleges that "some defence persons including serving persons were interested in acquisition of (another) plot" near the headquarters of Western Naval Command.

Comments (+)