People's Democracy

THE Deccan Chronicle exposé of the dubious land deals of M Venkaiah Naidu, has been confirmed and corroborated in all its essential detail by none else than the BJP president himself.

In his reply to the exposé, Naidu has confirmed that he obtained the D-Form patta from the government for 4.95 acre of dry land. He has also conceded to similar handiwork of his relatives in the remaining part of the 40.15-acre exploit, as can be seen by his contention: "The balance land that you are referring to is owned by either residents of the village and neighbouring villages with whom I may have a relationship."

It is also to be noted that nowhere in his response does he deny possession of government land and obtaining of D-Form patta for himself, nor does he deny the involvement of his father-in-law and his brother-in-law in the land grab.

Naidu mentions that his father-in-law is no more and that his brother-in-law has shifted to Nellore. But these inconsequential bits do not in any way negate the fact of their land grabbing and illegally obtaining pattas from the government, courtesy Naidu.

It is amusing that Naidu has sought to justify his action by fanciful conjecture and characteristic bluff. In fact, his clarification is more damning than the original exposé.

While Naidu’s appeal to public sympathy and human sentiment by pointing out the demise of his mother when he was a small child, and the difficult family circumstances under which he grew up, are understandable in his present predicament, his twisting of facts and blatant lying cannot be condoned.

This president of India’s ruling party wants us to believe that he is "still to verify from records" how and when he got the title for land which was under his possession since his adolescence. And that his memory conveniently reminds him that his uncle got him the title from the government around 1970 while he was a student.

He contends that "in 1978 only fresh pattas of land were issued." This is an outright lie. Anyone who has elementary knowledge of governmental actions, knows that a D-Form patta once assigned to someone will not be reissued to the same person to the same extent under the same category.

The official land record clearly states that the D-Form patta was assigned to Naidu vide file number F. Dis. No.1597/88 dated November 20, 1978. On that date, Naidu was an MLA. The 10/1 Adangal Record also reveals that on the single day of November 20, 1978, as many as 565 D-Form pattas were assigned to as many individuals in Kasumuru revenue village, besides Naidu.

It is also revealing to note that while the bulk of the lands — 325 to be precise — were assigned to those belonging to SCs, STs and BCs with extents of less than 1 acre, only a handful of persons like Naidu himself, (and presumably his relatives who are too many, according to him) got almost 5 acre each assigned to them. And, on the date of this assignment of land, November 20, 1978, Naidu was very much an MLA.

Therefore it is a safe presumption that Naidu had, while outwardly benefiting so many poor people, had actually helped himself and his other relatives to chunks of precious land under landless poor category.

Since Naidu is protesting too much and claiming that at the time of allotment of the land, he was eligible as per the rules and guidelines prevailing at that time, let us take his words at face value and stick to the rules.

The rules of government are very clear that anybody owning landed property can not seek allotment of government land under any category. Naidu himself admits that "My family had a reasonable amount of agricultural property which was mostly sold away by my father while I was still a young child."

If his family had owned agricultural property, how come the same family came in possession of government land? Does it not amount to land grabbing? Even assuming that his father had sold away the lands, only "mostly" and not totally, Naidu must still have inherited some lands.

What was the total extent of those lands? When he was in possession of landed property of whatever extent, how could he seek D-Form patta for government land which was meant strictly for the landless poor? Naidu was neither landless nor poor.

Even giving further benefit of doubt and accepting his contention that his uncle got him the D-Form patta while he was still a student, what did Naidu do after he became a political luminary?

Naidu cleverly says that he was "eligible as per the rules and guidelines prevailing at that point of time". But the rules clearly stipulate that no beneficiary of D-Form patta can possess more than 5 acre of dry land or 2.5 acre of wet land.

As admitted by Naidu, he was in possession of 4.95 — or almost 5 — acre of dry land. Even assuming that he did not possess a square-inch of ancestral property, he had already reached the ceiling limit of 5 acre dry land as per government rules.

It was incumbent on him to surrender the same to the government as soon as he acquired any other piece of landed property. The land records of Kasumuru village reveal that Naidu was in possession of 3.28 acre of wet land, as follows:

The question is — when he was possessing 3.28 acre of wet land in his name, how could he also hold on to the 4.95 acre of government land under the landless category? When and how did he acquire those wet lands? If it was before he became an MLA, he is guilty of suppressing this fact and seeking undue benefit from the government and thereby depriving really deserving persons of their rightful entitlement.

If it is after he became an MLA, he is still culpable since he should have declared the same and surrendered the D-Form patta back to the government for distribution among the landless.

Why did not he do that? Even though the assignment of dry land was done on November 20, 1978, it was entered in the 10/1 register as late as 1988. By that time, Naidu had been an MLA for two consecutive terms. Yet, he did not deem it his bounden duty to surrender the government land which he came to possess in contravention of rules.

One can understand such selfish aggrandisement and failure to abide by the law, in the case of ordinary folk. But how can Naidu, the 'high priest of morality and principled politics' indulge in such moral turpitude?

As implied in his own clarification, he and several other relatives possess large chunks of government lands which they have grabbed and got D-Form pattas made through the clout of Naidu as MLA.

By so doing they have robbed hundreds of destitute families among the SCs, STs and other oppressed classes of possible livelihood.

Even if Naidu chooses to surrender his 4.95 acre now, can it in any way set right the wrong perpetrated for so many decades, to the detriment of hapless people by Naidu and his kin?