Dharmana's Vizag quid pro quo!

By SNV Sudhir

Visakhapatnam, Dec 23, 2012: While the fate of Dharmana Prasada Rao, who resigned from the state cabinet a few months back on CBI prosecution is hanging in court, fingers are now being pointed at another G O which was issued in 2008 when he was revenue minister regularizing a piece of land to private persons under the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act (ULC) in Vizag.

A report by the then district collector before the GO was issued established that the private persons tried to grab the land by producing fake and fabricated documents.  An element of quid pro quo is alleged in issuing the G O as Prasada Rao’s son Dharmana Ram Manohar Naidu, purchased 2,750sft luxury flat at dirt cheap rate in an apartment complex coming up on the said land that was regularized through the G O, on the beach road.  

The flat worth crores in the market, according according to the sale purchase deed documents dated June, 2, 2010, accessed by this newspaper show M/s Virgin Rock Pvt Ltd having office in Srikakulam represented by its Managing Director, Dharmana Ram Manohar Naidu, son of Dharmana Prasada Rao purchased the flat for a paltry Rs 34, 59, 500.

As per the certified documents by the Vizag sub registrar office in I Town of the sale deed that are with this news paper, the flat no A-603 measuring super built up area of 2,750 Sft, inclusive of balconies, proportionate share in the common areas etc is in the fifth floor constructed up to the foundation level and two car parking bearing nos A-36, 37 in cellar floor of “A” block of the Residential Complex “Clover Majestic Towers” (Phase 1).

The multi storey apartment complex with more than 90 super luxury flats in three blocks valued hundreds of crores is coming up on the controversial land, which had been allotted to P Venkatapathi Raju and K Naga Kanaka Brahmam through G O Ms no. 424 issued by the revenue department on April 6,2006.  

In December 2006, the then district collector submitted a report to the government stating that P Venkatapathi Raju and K Naga Kanaka Brahmam, have managed to get the said land allotted to them by producing false documents. As a consequence of the district collector’s report, the G O was kept in abeyance.  

Later, Venkatapathi Raju and Brahmam filed representations before the then revenue minister, Dharmana Prasad Rao, and among other things, stated that they were willing to pay the highest slab rate.

The request of the applicants was considered by the state government, which decided to apply the highest slab rate of the year 2002 -Rs.1, 750 per sq.mtr, and accordingly, modification orders were issued fixing the highest slab rate under G.O.Ms.No.493, on March 26, 2008 and the abeyance order issued earlier was withdrawn.

Subsequently, the director general of the Anti Corruption Bureau, conducted discreet enquiry and recommended initiating departmental action against the two private persons, for submitting a fake and fabricated house tax book and tax receipts to the then special officer and the competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling,Visakhapatnam. The ACB also recommended that the two men be prosecuted under sections 420, 435, 465 and 471 of the IPC.

“What else it could be other than a quid pro quo arrangement a part of the bribe for regularizing the said land was in the form of a luxurious flat worth a few crores. These days you don’t get a simple two bedroom flat measuring 950sft for the amount with which son of Dharmana Prasada Rao bought a luxury 2,750 sft flat. What is the reason behind the promoters of the apartment complex sell the flat for that rate? Why Dharmana Ram Manohar Naidu is so special to them?” questioned CPI district secretary, JV Satyanrayana Murthy.

Meanwhile there was no response to the plea of former senior bureaucrat, EAS Sarma to allow him to prosecute the concerned revenue minister who issued the G O under various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

In a letter to the state governor, ESL Narasimham, on Nov 24, 2012, Sarma, said “In another case relating to illegal occupation of government lands on the basis of fabricated documents, a senior revenue minister at that time and several senior officers had benefited the culprits in return for posh apartments at nominal prices, about which I had made a reference in my letters earlier. The state is yet to grant me permission under the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the culprits. It clearly shows how the state government is shielding the corrupt deliberately. In a way, by shielding them, they have become abettors in the criminal offences committed by the concerned public servants.”