The Newsminute: Haritha John: Kochi: Saturday, February 20, 2016.
The Finance Department of the Kochi Metro Rail Limited (KMRL) recently shot off a letter to the state government pointing out significant deviations in the standard clauses in the land acquisition deal done with Seematti –a popular textile brand and company- for the Kochi Metro.
KMRL had acquired 32 cents of land from Seematti at a cost of almost Rs. 17 crores around March last year.
Based on an RTI enquiry, KMRL Director (Finance) Abraham Oommen points out certain anomalies in the agreement which he believes MG Rajamanickam -the Enakulam district collector- would have a hard time explaining to the public.
Abraham zeroes down on two main clauses which make the Seematti agreement different from that of others.
Price mentioned in agreement in Seemmatti’s favor
Firstly -as per KMRL- the agreed land value in the area was Rs 52 lakhs per cent. In the agreement signed between the district collector and Seematti, it was however specifically mentioned that the textile giant has the legal right to get Rs 80 lakhs per cent.
The said clause mentions that the land owner duly received Rs 52 lakhs per cent “under protest” as they have the right to get Rs 80 lakhs per cent and other benefits under Act 30 of the amended 2013 Land Acquistion Act.
“In the sale agreement, it is mentioned that Seematti accepted the amount fixed by the KMRL ‘under protest’ with the collector himself acceding to the controversial provision. In case Seematti decides to pursue matters legally, KMRL could suffer huge losses,” social activist and High Court lawyer JS Ajithkumar told The News Minute.
According to Ajith there are two types of land acquisition vis-à-vis public projects. One where land is acquired through the Court through a negotiation purchase and the other is done through the amended Land Acquisition Act.
“In the second method, there are lots of sub-clauses through which the seller benefits. In Seematti’s case, the dealing is supposed to be a negotiation purchase but the collector has apparently applied the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. That is not legal,” Ajith elaborates.
Every other commercial establishment or individual(s) in the area who reportedly sold their land to KMRL got only Rs 52 lakhs per cent, while it’s only Seematti that is now apparently eligible to get more money and ‘other benefits’.
“In addition to the amount agreed upon, Seematti could get 30% of the total money as 'solacium' (a relief sum given for forceful takeover of land along with 10% interest of the amount while the case is being pursued as well as the extra amount to which they are legally entitled as per the clause signed” says Ajith.
Seller has more privileges than usual
Yet another matter of interest is the way the Seematti agreement begins.
While other agreements begin with “land owner agrees to sell the said land…” that of Seematti’s begins with “the district collector agrees to purchase…”.
This is a clear indication that the seller is entitled to all the benefits under the Acquisition Act. This is in strict contrast with the public stance of both KMRL as well as Seematti that the sale was done through a negotiation deal.
“Yet Seematti possesses an agreement for sale. Only negotiation deals have an agreement for sale. With the loophole clause present, all they need to do is take this agreement to court and get the amount they demanded from KMRL,” adds Ajith.
Why the purpose was stated different in this contract?
The third point of objection was that there was a contradiction in the fourth recital of the agreement which mentions that “the owner has agreed for the sale of the land hitherto being used for metro rail and for no other purpose to KMRL”.
This however contradicts the main agreement signed by KMRL that the land should be exclusively owned by the company and can be used for any purpose.
The seventh clause of the Seematti agreement however again reinstates this exclusive ownership. Legal experts don’t view this as a significant contradiction, but KMRL has its own reservations about it.
However the Ernakulam district collector –MG Rajamanickam who was supposedly critical of the Finance director directly sending him a letter in the first place- has denied all the allegations in an explanation letter sent to the KMRL Managing Director.
Though Rajamanickam could not explain the inclusion of the fourth recital, he reiterated that the seventh clause allows for exclusive ownership. He also did not mention why the provisions of the 2013 acquisition act were applied in a negotiation deal.
Legal experts believe that the case justifies a vigilance enquiry. They also believe that someone from within KMRL too must have had a role in this alleged act of corruption.
“80% of the amount has already been transferred to the seller. How can KMRL give the money without checking the agreement? If their finance department was unaware about the clauses in the agreement, then it is obvious that someone else from within the company is involved,” a legal advisor who sought anonymity said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
