Gujarat Government has rejected the allegations of wrongdoing in sale of land to private firm supposedly linked with Chief Minister Anandiben Patel’s daughter Anar Patel and termed it as ‘figment of imagination’. The State said this in its affidavit to Gujarat High Court on Wednesday.
The State filed the affidavit before a division bench of Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice Anant Dave in response to a public interest ligitation filed by an NGO RTI Activists Sangathan.
The State Government said that the decision to allot 99 hectares of land was bona fide and as per the policies of the State Government to promote tourism industry in the State. “It is a figment of imagination of the petitioner that the officers of the respondent departments have perpetrated fraud in the allotment of land,” the affidavit read. It also gave details of the procedure followed to arrive at the pricing for the said allotment.
The State Government plead that the land was allotted to WRRPl following an MoU between the State Tourism Department and company on January 12, 2009, to establish a wildlife resort with a proposed investment of `80 crore.
As per the details of the case, the State land at Patla village in Amreli district was allotted to Wildwoods Resort & Realities Pvt ltd (WRRPl), at a concession rate of `15 per square metre, as against the actual valuation of `180 per square metre. The petitioner in the PIl had alleged that the land was allotted to business associates of Anar Patel and had sought a probe by judicial committee. They also sought that the order by the State Government to allot land to WRRPl be set aside.
On the issue of auction for land, the State maintained that it was not a “constitutional mandate”. As for the State being within the eco-sensitive area of a kilometer of Gir lion Sanctuary, the State quoted Centre’s notification of February 9, 2011, that permits setting up of hotels and resorts in the eco-sensitive zone as “regulated activities”.
The State requested the High Court to dismiss the petition on technical grounds of it being delayed by more than five years of allotment and clearance of land to WRRPl and that “no public interest” was involved in the case.
The High Court later granted petitioner two-weeks time to file a rejoinder to the affidavit.