Warty’s report on Sahara project glosses over flaws

However, the project appeared to be having a smooth sailing after the alliance government granted a Letter of Intent on January 7, 1997. But anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare’s threat to expose Joshi’s alleged involvement in the multi-crore project followed by Congress leader R R Patil’s charge that there was a Rs 100 crore deal in clearing the project, prompted the Chief Minister Manohar Joshi to stay the on-going developmental works and appoint a high-level probe into the project.

There was no alternative for Joshi except to order a probe since it was for the first time that a serious allegation of corruption was made against the department headed by none other than the Chief Minister himself.

Accordingly, a panel headed by Warty was set up on May 13 and though the committee was to go into the irregularities, curiously, its terms of reference sought from it measures to regularise illegal and unauthorised constructions. There was not even a mention of the charges levelled by Hazare and Patil either.

All that the committee was asked was to scrutinise the permissions obtained by SIHL, to see whether the constructions made by SIHL were regular, to suggest how to regularise these illegal constructions and to find out whether there was violations of conditions laid down in the letter of intent.

As a logical corollary, Warty, in his 49-page report, has all along recommended that despite ram pant illegal and unauthorised constructions, it was well within government’s powers to regularise the deal by levying compounding fees to the extent of Rs 55 lakh. Moreover, Warty has specifically mentioned in the report that neither the SIHL nor the 66 farmers, who had given their power of attorney to the former, had purchased tribal land.

It is generally felt in the bureaucratic circles that before submitting his recommendations to the government, Warty should have carefully examined the reports submitted by Additional Collector, Pune to Revenue Minister Narayan Rane on February 26 and the report submitted by the then Additional Collector Avinash Dharmadhikari. Similarly, he should have gone through the debate in the Legislative Assembly on tribal lands procured by SIHL.

In his comprehensive submission to Chief Minister Manohar Joshi, Dharmadhikari, who was then his Deputy Secretary, had cautioned against clearing the project.

The reports submitted to Rane had also stated that the farmers, who had given power of attorney to SIHL had violated the Agriculture Land (Ceiling on Holding) Act, did not obtain non-agriculture permission, illegally constructed farm houses, helipads and undertook massive quarrying operations despite the fact that the Pune Collector had denied the permission for the same way back on Nov 24, 1994.

Warty apparently did nothing of this sort which buttresses the argument that his report ignored several glaring lapses in clearing the proect.

Interestingly, though Warty’s report mentions that about 156 hectares of finally acquired forest land has been illegally occupied by SIHL, it goes on to say that there are no official records to prove this.

Armed with Warty’s report, the land transactions were thus approved by the alliance government.

However, when the issue of tribal land was brought to the notice of Joshi during his weekly media briefing, he had maintained that though it was a tribal zone, it was not tribal land. Apparently, Joshi’s observations were based on the report of Warty which specifically observed that SIHL did not purchase tribal land.

SIHL flays media, silent on charges

SIHL has come out with a fact-sheet to avoid confusion following “half-truth” stories in a section of the media. “We have not violated any government rules or regulations with regard to land matters or environment nor have we caused any harm or disturbance to the local public in the neighbouring villages. In fact, the villages have significantly benefited by our project,” SIHL Controller O P Dixit said in a statement.

The fact-sheet, inter-alia states the status prior to 1991, report on land status, land selection criteria, government notification on draft development plan for Pune district, project conceptualisation, proposal to government from Sahara, development of infrastructure by Sahara, letter of intent to Sahara, background of landowners, Sahara’s commitment to environment and benefits of government. However, it is completely silent on the charges levelled by Hazare and R R Patil and also on the controversy over tribal and forest land purchased by the farmers. Secondly, the fact-sheet does not mention as to how SIHL began construction (mentioned in the Warty Committee report) on the site without obtaining prior permission of the competent authorities.