Adarsh Society: Land belonged to Army as per new revelations

In a significant twist to the dispute between the Maharashtra government and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) regarding the ownership of the controversial Adarsh CHS land, Defense Estate Officer (DEO) Gita Kashyap has submitted 'documents' to the inquiry commission stating that the land belonged to the army.

The 'document' is a Survey of India Plan of 1957 of the Backbay Reclamation area which clearly shows that a military office existed on a small portion of land (on which Adarsh building today stands) in Block VI which was in possession of local military authorities (LMA) since 1941. In the light of the above revelation, Kashyap pointed out that in spite of the land being in possession of the army since 1941, the state government had not asked it for any rent for use of land and that there was no question of it being reclaimed.

The matter came to light during Kashyap's cross-examination by the commission's counsel, advocate Dipan Merchant earlier this week. Merchant was referring to a letter dated April 6, 1941 addressed by the then Military Estate Officer to the Station HQ to which this 1957 plan was attached.

The letter refers to some digging going on at the plot and states, "it is not known whether the work is being done by the MES or some encroacher with a view to encroach upon the land which is under the possession of the Defence department." In another statement that could prove to be a major set back for the state government, which is claiming ownership of the land, Kashyap said that as per the letters and documents available, the land in question was in use of the Federal government from as far back as 1941.

Kashap stated, "the property in question was neither on lease nor on licence and no rent has been paid nor had the state government had asked for the same. But the army was in possession of the land in question as per the records." However, Kashyap stated that she was not aware about exact the date from which the army was in possession of the land.

A statement in the same letter further reads, "This portion of the land where the defence building exists is original and no reclamation has been involved. As the buildings existed since 1941 or even earlier, any contemplation of reclamation was only considered beyond this area, which was swampy as indicated by the survey map of 1957."Kashyap stated that this particular statement was indeed correct.

Minutes of a meeting that was held between then subarea commander and senior government officials on the land ownership question on July 20, 1975, were also presented before the panel along with a series of letters written dealing with land ownership. The minutes stated, " the portion of the land was in use for Defence purpose since 1941 even prior to the enactment of the constitution so the question of encroachment of state government land does not arise."