Sabarimala airport at Cheruvally Estate: Govt move suspicious, KPCC ex-president Sudheeran tells HC

KOCHI: State government’s order for setting up Sabarimala airport at Cheruvally Estate without declaring that the land belongs to the government is intended to grant non-existing rights to encroachers, former KPCC president VM Sudheeran has alleged at the Kerala High Court.
The allegation was raised in a petition filed by Sudheeran seeking to join in the case filed by Harrisons Malayalam Ltd (HML) and others challenging the appointment of IAS officer MG Rajamanickam as special officer for resumption of government lands.Cheruvally Estate was allegedly sold by HML to Gospel for Asia.
“A reading of Ext.R4(e) (CM’s reply to question in Assembly) would show that the Government, in the said order have not in clear term stated that it is a land belonging to the Government and not to any private person like Harrisons Malayalam/Gospel for Asia. Therefore, the genuineness and bona fide of the Government’s approach reflected in the said executive order calls for reasonable suspicion.
Therefore, a reading (of) the Ext.R4(c) (cabinet decision) in the light of Exts.R4(d) and R4(e) (Question to CM in Assembly and its answer) would create a reasonable apprehension in any reasonable prudent citizen that the Government is extremely irresponsible in the matter and they find themselves unable to assert their right over the land in categorical terms,” Sudheeran’s petition said. This is a deliberate and calculated effort to create ambiguity with a view to weaken Government’s contentions and it is against public interest, Sudheeran has alleged.
Further, Sudheeran has also questioned the law secretary’s communication to the government that the reports prepared by the special officer are not acceptable. “It is curious to note that the Special Officer Sri. Rajamanickam, IAS was appointed under Section 15 of the Land Conservancy Act 1957, as permitted by the judgment dated 23.2.2013 of this Hon’ble Court in W.P(C)No.14251/2012 and W.P(C)No.213/2013 as indicated in para 4 above. When such an officer has prepared and submitted a report on the basis of the permission granted by this Hon’ble Court, it is quite unbecoming on the part of the Law Secretary to make adverse comments even by way of the communication to the Government,” the petition said.