State justifies Vyas building

Pune corporator Nitin Jagtap and freelance journalist Vijay Kumbhar have filed the two PILs. They allege that Vyas misused his political clout to dereserve the Prabhat Road plot, which was originally meant for a primary school. It is alleged that officials in the Pune Municipal Corporation changed the development control rules and allowed Vyas to construct a multi-storeyed shopping complex.

Vyas then gave an alternative plot for the school in a distant suburb, the petitioners claimed. It alleged that before the exact orders of dereservation were issued on July 29 this year, the seven-storeyed building had already been constructed. The petitions are being heard by the division bench of Chief Justice M.B. Shah and Y.S. Jahagirdar. The bench has ordered the respondent parties to file affidavits and explain their position before the final hearing on September 25. Four affidavits, including the one by the State Government, have been filed.

The only one remaining is now by the Chief Minister, who is also a respondent. His affidavit will be filed on September 21. The urban development department is headed by the CM and the major policy decision about the plot were taken by the ministry.

The State Government’s affidavit said the two petitions are vague and solely based on newspaper reports. The Prabhat Road plot was earlier reserved for a school, but Vyas was permitted to develop it after following the due process of law, the affidavit says. It says Vyas has “acted in public interest” by giving an alternative plot to the school and paying Rs. 25 lakh to the PMC for the school’s development.

The affidavit filed by PMC’s city engineer Madhav Harihar (during whose tenure permission was granted to Vyas’ building) detailed the legal process followed by the PMC before dereserving the plot. Earlier, the 3,000 square metre plot was reserved for a garden. After revision of the development plan, it was earmarked for a school. The PMC entered into an award with the owner.

However, the tenants of the plot moved the civil court and obtained an injunction. Following this the option of construction of the complex was considered. Harihar has recounted the orders issued by the State UDD to the PMC regarding the Vyas’ complex. His affidavit mentions that the department suggested that while deserving the plot, the municipal commissioner should use rules which do not necessitate the permission of the general body of the corporation.

The affidavit of former municpal commissioner Ramanath Jha recounts the same process in which the government, particularly UDD, directed the PMC to consider Vyas’ proposal. The affidavits of Jha and Harihar are quite similar. Both deny working under the diktat of the CM.

Vyas’ affidavit claims that the two petitions are “politically motivated” and “part of the smear campaign being run by the political opponents of his father-in-law.” He wonders why the petitioners did not raise the issue two years ago when the building permission was granted. He justifies the dereservation saying that a school could not have been built on the plot which had many existing structures.

Vyas mainatins that petitioners have misread the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. He said, contrary to the opinion of the petitioners, a plot once reserved can be dereserved by revising the development plan.