Press Briefing Wednesday, 3rd August 2011

Shri Abhishek Singhvi addressed the media today.

Shri Abhishek Singhvi said media reports and certain political parties have, since a couple of days, been trying to raise some issue of Rajiv Gandhi Charitable Trust. I want to start by saying that these are slides of fertile imagination. These are the parties or the persons who are tilting at windmills of non-existent facts. They are knowingly indulging in a campaign of misinformation and disinformation. The only attempt is to confuse and confound and to become clear in a moment when I share the obvious basic facts with you which are incontrovertible. Please appreciate, no land has been acquired or exempted. Therefore, there can be no question of no land being de-acquired for the Trust. The Trust is not the land owner at all. The Trust has taken steps under established rules to lease the land which hundreds of charitable trusts are doing. Let me now place the facts. Rajiv Gandhi Charitable Trust has been doing yeoman’s charitable works in 2002 purely for public interest in the interest of ‘aam-aadmi’. They have two running hospitals for eye surgeries. Over 8.5 lakh patients have been treated. Highly subsidized surgeries at Rs. 500 each surgery has been done which otherwise would cost Rs 5000/- and other surgeries at Rs. 5000/- which otherwise would cost around Rs. 20-50,000/-. They also do many programmes of self-help group and women empowerment and the third focus is vocational training. This Trust applied, not to purchase land, not to own land, not to register a sale deed, merely applied for a lease, it got 33 years of lease from the Gram Panchayat. It got a lease but under established rules. The Gram Panchayat could offer it at concessional rate. In writing the Gram Panchayat offered the land because, it was not farmers’ land since the Gram Panchayat felt that a hospital here will do good for the people of the village. So, Gram Panchayat said please take this land on lease and we will charge you Rs. 1000/- per acre per year The Trust wrote in 2009, although they were entitled for concessional rate, to charge them at market rate and instead of Rs. 1000/- per acre per year offered to pay Rs. 3.00 lakhs per year per acre and the land being 5.3 acres the lease rent is Rs. 15 lakhs per year. Is this the way the facts have been projected. Some of your colleagues have projected 850 acres. The Trust would be happy to have 850 acres. Only 5.3 acres of gram sabha land and not farmers’ land. Now you are comparing it with Bhatta-Parsaul where poor farmers’ land was acquired for commercial purposes to builders. What is the difference between the lease and sale? The Trust cannot transfer this land to anybody. If it does not establish the hospital, the land will be taken away. So, my political friends, before they close their eyes, I would like to ask them are they furthering public interest, the interest of the poor who get virtually free eye treatment.

Shri Singhvi further said that coming to acquisition – Before even the Trust applied for a paltry 5.3 acres, 1417 acres were under acquisition under section 4 before the Trust’s application. Section 4 is a declaration of intent to acquire. Thereafter after one year or over one year against the 1417 acres, 608 acres were not acquired under section 6. In other words, the Trust was only leased out 5.3 acres out of 608 acres left out. Trust is not the owner. Where is the ownership? Where is the poor farmers’ land being taken away for some Trust? Where is the de-notification? These are the facts on papers. Let me say as it hurts us just as much as it has hurt the High Court today in a subjudiced matter between ‘A’ and ‘B’. The people in the press are reporting observations which are totally out of context. We are not a party, it does not apply to us. All that has happened is that in a case in the High Court a bunch of petitioners have alleged that since 608 acres were left out, why then other land also was not left out which is a matter between the High Court, the State government and the arguments of general arbitrariness in every land acquisition case. We are not concerned with it as far as the party or the Trust is concerned. In fact the Gram Panchayat is also not concerned along with others. Therefore, without repeating too much, this is a case of those who are opposed to public interest, who are opposed to charitable work, who are opposed to ‘aam-aadmi’s’ interest, who are opposed to rural development. It is those vested interests who have an axe to grind. Secondly, it shows that our political opponents do not think before they speak; do not wait to verify the facts for the last 24 hours. Some of our media friends should also take more care before reporting. In any case, as far as the Congress party is concerned, or those public functionaries who are Trustees are concerned, this is the basic point. This is anti-public interest political propaganda without factually verifying the facts because of misinformation and disinformation purely to create a climate of confusion.

On the reaction of the Congress party over the BJP raising this issue in Rajya Sabha, Shri Singhvi said that this is a lease for 33 years. After the Trust had applied for leasing out the land in July 2009. The Trust asked the Gram Panchayat on 17.11.2009 to lease out the land not on concessional rate but at the market rate. It was on 23.11.2009 the approval of Gram Panchayat was given. The decision of the Gram Panchayat was approved by the Haryana government on 14.12.2009.

With regard to the proceedings in the Court, Shri Singhvi said that this is a proceeding unrelated to the Trust and further asked is this the basis for disrupting the Rajya Sabha.

On another question whether any action can be taken for leveling of the wild allegations by the BJP, Shri Singhvi said this is a matter for the Trust to decide.

To a question over the CAG report concerning CM of Delhi, Shri Singhvi said this report is not in the public domain.

On another question on the price rise and whether the Congress party has compromised, Shri Singhvi said there is no question of compromise. We believe that price rise is an extremely serious issue and we believe we are more concerned about it than anybody else. We further believe that this issue needs to be discussed objectively without ulterior political motive.    
 

(Tom Vadakkan)
Secretary, AICC