Opposition Leader V S Achuthanandan said that the reply given to his submission on the withdrawal of Vigilance case related to the mutation (pokkuvaravu) done to the Kovalam Halcyon Palace was baseless and devoid of facts.
He told a news conference here on Friday that there was corruption and conspiracy behind the ‘’sabotaging’’ of the Vigilance case.
He said it was in 1962 that the government acquired the land for the KTDC from Makayiram Thirunal Ramavarma Valiya Koyithampuran. It was to set up the Kovalam Palace Hotel as part of tourism development. The government had paid Rs 5,26,431 as its price, he said.
He pointed out that ITDC was registered only in 1966 and a proposal to set up a Five Star hotel jointly with the Kerala Government was submitted on the same year. From this, it is clear that the government’s claim that the Kovalam Palace land was acquired for the ITDC was not right, Achuthanandan said. He also said that the government had never ever handed over the Palace to the ITDC. In 1970, the possession of 43 acres of land was allowed to the ITDC. Following this, the Government of India, through its additional director general of Tourism, and Kerala Tourism Development Corporation, represented by its MD, signed an agreement to hand over the possession to the ITDC.
VS said that the GO issued by the Revenue Department on May 25, 2000 clearly stated that the government handed over only the possession of the land to the ITDC and its ownership was still with the State Government. Further, it has also asked the Emfar group to hand over the possession to the government. The order had also asked the government to make the relevant changes in the government record in this regard.
In a reply to the then District Collector Sarada Muralidharan on May 2000, on her demand for accepting land tax for ITDC, the additional tahasildar had stated that the land acquisition was not for ITDC and no other record other than the Collector’s order on ownership was available in the village office, he said.
VS said all these details point to the fact that the government had given a baseless and factually incorrect reply to his submission in the Assembly.