-- Chief Minister Manohar Joshi after the striking down of his ministry's letter of intent for the multi-crore Amby Valley project of Sahara.

Only a spinmeister of the calibre of Joshi could have turned a damning ruling of the High Court on its head to pat himself on the back. For, while the bench of Justices Ashok Desai and P S Patankar actually pulled up the state government for issuing the Letter of Intent (LoI) to Sahara India Housing Limited (SIHL), Joshi was pulling the wool over the peoples' eyes by gloating over the court's endorsement of state's policy to attract private investment in tourism.

The case had come up before the division bench as petition filed by Bombay Environment Protection Group (BEAG) through Samir Mehta. The litigation revolved around 3,763 acres of land spread across of seven villages of Mulshi taluka near Lonavala.Sahara India had bought the land from 69 individuals in early nineties and later went on with construction on these plots under its Amby Valley project.

In their stern ruling -- seen by everybody expect Joshi as quite damaging to the government -- the judges quashed the LoI, directed the state government to probe the land deals of Sahara and permitted the tribals to approach the competent authority/court for establishing that their lands have been taken by force and without making payment.

But Joshi deflected attention from this most damning observation of the court. Dismissing the government's argument that the LoI was granted to Sahara merely to help it get other clearances, the court almost chided the government for being so helpful: ``....According to the government such a letter of intent has been issued to facilitate Sahara in securing the requisite clearances from the forest department of the state as well as the Central government. The state, interestingly, wants to play the role of facilitator inimplementing such a project,'' the judges said. They added that such a ``provisional'' clearance should not have been issued at all.

At another stage, the court observes: ``Further, Sahara has started construction since March 1995 without any permission but with an ardent belief of its regularisation; this clearly conveys that it expected governmental blessings and hence the government has undertaken the exercise of issuing the LoI to suit the mission of Sahara.'' They ruled that ``there was much force'' in the petitioners' submission that the LoI was ``illegal and void'' and nothing but an ``attempt to regularise the illegal development carried out by Sahara''.

As per official records, 69 persons from Uttar Pradesh purchased land in Mulshi village of Pune district during 1992 to 1996. Subsequently, they executed a power of attorney in favour of Sahara for developing farm houses on their lands. Though SIHL was not the owner of the lands, it started constructions since March 1995 and that too without anypermission. Then followed the September 3 draft notification for inviting private investment in developing hill stations and the final notification on November 25, 1996.

The court observed that it seemed that Sahara decided to take benefit of the notification and floated the Amby Valley project on the same plots of land purchased by the individuals. ``Prima facie, it seems that those individual purchasers are only ostensible owners and purchases benami in nature. Undisputedly, Sahara is merely a power of attorney holder of individual purchasers and in such a situation, the LoI should not have been issued to it'' to develop the land as one combined entity, the court observed.

Since Sahara is acting merely as a developer and since neither the Ceiling Act, the Bombay Tenancy Act nor the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act recognise a developer, an owner alone could be a developer. Even the official notification granting exemption to the project from ceiling on holding an agricultural land also makes itexplicit that the person must be a holder of the land.

Refraining to comment on the development carried out on the land, the court observed that if it was not legal, it cannot be said to be in public interest or to promote public policy; it is all the more to further the interest of Sahara and someone else behind the show.

The landmark decision is being considered as a major setback for the chief minister. By and large, cabinet members as well as top bureaucrats feel that Joshi should not have waited for the high court to quash and set aside the LoI. Instead, he himself should have taken such a step immediately after the Pune Collector and the two high-level official committees headed by Principal Secretary (Revenue) Ajit Warty and Additional Chief Secretary R Rangnathan brought the irregularties of the project to the notice of the government.

The Pune Collector had submitted that at least a dozen farmers, who had given power of attorney to SIHL, violated the Agriculture Land (Ceiling on Holding) Act,illegally constructed farm houses and a helipad and had illegally quarried the land to remove brass in complete violation of the existing legislations.

The Warty Committee had also confirmed the fact that there was violation of the Agriculture Land Ceiling Act and that Sahara had indulged in large scale illegal constructions. On its part, the Rangnathan Committee had expressed doubts about the land transactions between Sahara and a section of tribals in the Pune belt.

Obviously, Joshi chose to turn a blind eye to these facts. And now, as the political chorus for action against persons responsible for clearing the project gains momentum, Joshi's best defence is to try and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Because, as the Urban Development minister, he has only himself to blame for the mess.