Coming out against the decision to give licence to the bungalows of the Kanan Devan Hills Plantations (KDHP) Company Private Ltd in Munnar and Devikulam, Opposition Leader V S Achuthanandan has urged the government to withdraw from such a move.
“The move to hand over the bungalows of the KDHP to the Muthoot Group is in clear violation of the law and the decision has been taken without considering the ongoing cases in this regard in the High Court,” he said. Express had on Monday reported about the issuance of licences to the bungalows of the KDHP by Munnar and Devikulam panchayat secretaries. The revenue and district administration were kept in the dark about the issuance of the licences.
VS also alleged that corruption to the tune of crores was involved in giving the licences and handing over of the bungalows. The government had taken such a stand while the KDHP was not having any right over the land.
Stating that the previous LDF Government had initiated action against the functioning of illegal resorts on the bungalows of KDHP, VS said the licences for these resorts were cancelled by the then District Collector. The licences were given when an interim order by the High Court clearly said that its concurrence and direction was needed for any decision related to giving licence for homestays or the use of the land for tourism purposes.
It had also directed that the order of the LSGD Ombudsman giving permission to grant licences should not be implemented. However, the Munnar and Devikulam panchayat secretaries had issued licences on the basis of the Ombudsman’s order. It had also been said that the action of both the panchayat secretaries amount to contempt of court. It is alleged that the Ombudsman is not considering the serious contentions of the government while giving the report, which is with the Express. In the report, (May 25, 2013), Ombudsman M N Krishnan says that the owners of the estate can utilise five per cent of the holdings for tourism purposes as per the amendment to the Land Reforms Act.
Legal experts note that the Ombudsman behaved in such a manner to show that he was entitled to do what he liked.