Belagavi MP Stages Walkout Over Land Allotment Controversy
In a dramatic turn of events, Belagavi MP Jagadish Shettar staged a walkout from the general body meeting of the Belagavi Cantonment Board on Friday. The protest was centered on the board's controversial stand regarding the allotment of land designated for a flower market.
Allegations of Procedural Lapses and Financial Loss
Raising the issue during the heated meeting, Shettar alleged that approximately 6,045 square meters of land had been allotted for the flower market stalls without obtaining the necessary approval from the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). The MP asserted that this decision resulted in a significant financial loss, amounting to several lakhs of rupees for the APMC. He took officials to task over the matter, demanding accountability for the alleged oversight.
Shettar's Demands for Proper Procedure
Shettar argued that any allocation of land within the cantonment limits must follow a strict protocol. He emphasized that such decisions should be made only after taking the local MP into confidence and passing a formal resolution. Furthermore, he insisted that the process should include:
- Inviting tenders in a transparent manner
- Verifying the purpose for which the successful bidder intended to use the land
- Ensuring all regulatory approvals are in place
Alleging that the Board had failed to follow due procedure, Shettar proposed that the earlier resolution approving the allotment be immediately cancelled and replaced with a revised one that adheres to legal and administrative norms.
Board President's Firm Stand and Subsequent Walkout
However, the proposal was met with resistance. Board president Brigadier Joydeep Mukherjee rejected Shettar's demands, maintaining that the resolution passed in the previous meeting would stand and could be taken up for consideration at a later date. Condemning the Board's functioning and what he perceived as a disregard for proper protocol, Shettar walked out of the meeting in protest. This action underscores the ongoing tensions between local political representatives and administrative bodies in matters of land allocation and governance.
