CAUSES OF ETICAL BEHAVIOR AND THE PARTIES INVOLVED

Main owner of Lavasa is HCC, which holds 65 per cent in Lavasa. The rest is held by Avantha Group, Venkateshwara Hatcheries, Mr. Vithal Maniar and eight banks. As an owner, they have great influence over the working of the company. The main controversy in regard to this is Sharad Pawar having a huge impact on this project.

SHARAD PAWARS ROLE Stakeholder: Daughter and son-in-law of Sharad Pawar, jointly held 7,94,000 equity shares and 2.9 million redeemable preference shares in Lavasa corporation from 2002-2004 Also, close associates of Sharad Pawar such as Aniruddha Deshpande and Vitthal Maniyar. Clearances: Lavasa corporation got most of clearances from the State Government during times when Sharad Pawar and/or his kin were in relevant positions. Corporation signed lease agreements and agreements to store water and build dams with the MKVDC when Ajit Pawar (nephew of Sharad Pawar) was the chairman of MKVDC at the time of granting permissions. Mentoring: Sharad Pawar himself had conceptualized the project when he took Ajit Gulabchand to the present site and presented the idea. This was also while Ajit Pawar was in MKVDC and hence in position to grant necessary permissions. The construction at Lavasa started after Sharad Pawar had assumed the position of minister of Agriculture.

OTHER CORRUPTION CHARGES AND THE PARTIES INVOLVED Various government deparments have been accused of taking bribes and giving clearences to lavasa corporation. Bribes were also paid to obtain loans. CBI has investigated a loan from the Central Bank of India. Allegedly, Manhinder Singh Johar, director, Centarl Bank of India had been paid a bribe of 3 million rupees for sanctioning a loan of 4 billion rupees. Although lavasa corporation denied doing anything like this. MAHARASHTRA STATE GOVERNMENT BENT BACKWARDS,TWISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS TO LET LAVASA GETS ITS WAY This includes a) On May 30, 2001, the Maharashtra government removed the upper limit of 2,000 ha in the hill station policy, allowing Lavasa to take as much land as it wished b) On Lavasas request, the state urban development department amended the hill station policy again on June 7, 2007. The original regulation said the development shall in no case involve hill cutting. The clause was changed to: the development as far as possible should not involve cutting the mountains. The amendment triggered haphazard cutting of hills.

 HCC AND THE GOVERNMENT Ajit Gulabchand, chairperson of Hindustan Construction Company which owns 65 per cent of LCL, made a number of demands. These included reducing the no-development zone along the reservoir from 100 metre to 30 metre; designating LCL its own planning authority; allowing increase of height of buildings; permitting a mix of commercial and residential land use in the town centre and permitting a global (floating) FSI. Gulabchand gave a timeframe of four weeks to take necessary actions. The chief minister directed the officials to act expeditiously. These demands were met the next year. In June 2008, LCL was made a special planning authority with powers to plan and approve development in the area under its jurisdiction.

DUBIOUS LAND ACQUISITIONS AND REASON FOR THESE PRACTICES Lavasa has also been accused of acquiring land illegally for the project. If activists are to be believed, 372 ha with LCL was acquired by the state under Maharashtra Agriculture Land (Ceiling and Holding) Act of 1961. Under the Act, land in excess of the ceiling limit is acquired from landowners and distributed to the landless. The government transferred this land to Lavasa, not the poor. The reason proffered for the land transfer can be found in a letter sent by the collector of Pune to the revenue department in Mumbai. The letter dated January 9, 2005, says the government would earn only Rs 1,02,736 if the land was given to the poor, instead of Rs 1.65 crore if the it is given to LCL. The comment shows the apathy of officials towards poor in a welfare state,. . The revenue department exempted LCL from paying stamp duty on all land transactions. The peoples commissions initial findings in Mugaon village says 65 families have lost nearly 135 ha to Lavasa without getting proper compensation. There are complaints of fraud, too. EXAMPLES Bandya Bhau Wahelkar, 65-year-old resident of Mugaon, says the 6 ha he was allocated under the land ceiling Act was sold twice without his knowledge. Also he said When I tried to block access to my land with boulders to prevent mining, company workers threatened me twice with a pistol, he adds. Another resident of the village, Leelabai says 20.23 ha land that her family had tilled for 40 years was transferred without their knowledge. About three years ago, Lavasa wanted permission to build a road through our land. We refused but they went ahead with the construction, says Leelabai. When we went to check the land records at the tehsil office, we could not find our names in the records.