Criminal nexus between Rajes-laMo: Cong

The war of words between the Congress and the BJP over the Dholpur Palace row, for which the Opposition party has already demanded immediate removal of Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje due to alleged “criminal nexus” between her family and former IPl boss lalit Modi, continued unabated on Tuesday. 

Declaring that the Congress will not stop disclosures till a “closure” is done by the BJP by removing Raje, senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh released some fresh documents, including one dating back to1949, which showed that the Dholpur Palace was owned by the Rajasthan Government.

For the second consecutive day, Ramesh accused Raje and her family of “forcible, illegal occupation” of the Dholpur Palace, along with lalit Modi, through a private company.

The BJP, however, rubbished the claims made by senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh who has said “there has been a criminal nexus between lalit Modi and the Vasundhara Raje family.”In Jaipur, BJP Rajasthan president Ashok Parnami showed documents, saying a court order of November 22, 1958 clearly proved that the Dholpur Palace was handed over to Dushyant Singh, son of Raje. The Press conference saw heated exchanges between the media and the BJP leaders with one news channel correspondent repeatedly pressing Parnami to respond to questions from his boss over telephone.

The BJP State president said, following the court direction and the compromise Dushyant reached with Hemant Singh, his father and estranged husband of Raje, “physical possession” of the Dholpur Palace was taken by Dushyant. 

Rejecting Ramesh’s claims, Parnami who fielded questions alongwith Rajasthan Health Minister Rajendra Rathore, said, “Dushyant got all legal rights even to sell, mortgage, or give on lease the said property (Dholpur Palace) which is not disputed anywhere”.

On Ramesh’s charge that Dholpur palace was on “gair mumkin abadi” (non-agriculture) area, Rathore said, “Actually, half of Jaipur has been built on such area. That does not mean that the palace was located on illegal land,” Rathore added.