It deals with issues of ownership and reservation of land
The two-member Adarsh Judicial Commission submitted its interim report to the State government on Friday. The sealed 100-page report was submitted by secretary of the commission N.N. Kumbhar to Chief Secretary Ratnakar Gaikwad at the Secretariat here.
The report has dealt with the issues of ownership and reservation of the plot of land where Adarsh building was constructed.
Both the State government and the Ministry of Defence had laid claim on the land. Regarding the issue of whether the plot was reserved for Kargil war heroes' families, the State government and the Ministry of Defence told the Commission during the arguments over the past few months that the land was not reserved.
“After the report is submitted, it will be processed by the government. Then the Cabinet will discuss it. It will be tabled before the House only after that,” Mr. Ratnakar Gaikwad told The Hindu hours before the report was submitted to him.
Senior government officials said that the entire process might take at least three to four days and that the report would be made public only when it is placed before the House. The report is expected to be placed before the House sometime next week.
Meanwhile, the Commission consisting of retired judge of the Bombay High Court J A Patil and the former Chief Secretary P. Subramanium, will continue recording evidence of the State government employees from April 16.
It will decide on May 14 the dates for recording the statements of politicians Sunil Tatkare, Shivajirao Nilengekar-Patil and the former Maharashtra Chief Minister, Ashok Chavan, whose names have figured in the scam. The dates for summoning Vilasrao Deshmukh and Sushilkumar Shinde will be decided on May 23.
Senior counsel for the State government Anil Sakhre told The Hindu that during the arguments in the Commission over the past few months, the State government claimed ownership of the land in question, while the Ministry of Defence laid its claim on the basis of the adverse possession principle.
“Darius Khambata, while representing the Ministry of Defence, argued that the Army owned the land according to the principle of adverse possession. But the State government argued that the principle applies only regarding cases between the private parties and the government. The Central government cannot claim the principle in cases, where the land is owned by the State government,” he said.
“Adverse possession, in layperson's term means, if anybody holds a property in any way for more than 12 years and nobody makes any legal attempt to throw the person away, then the person is in adverse possession of the property,” senior lawyer Girish Kulkarni said.
The Commission has so far examined 36 witnesses.