Surprised at the mindset of Visva Bharati authorities, says Amartya Sen on allegations of land grab
The Hindu
Earlier this week, the University had alleged that Professor Sen’s residence had been built on an area, which covered extra 13 decimals of land
Amidst the ongoing controversy at Visva Bharati University where the University had accused Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen of land grab, Professor Sen on Thursday said that he was surprised at the mind-set of the authorities of the Central University.
He also told journalists at his Santiniketan residence that those engaged in academics should find out if justice or injustice was being done.
Earlier this week, a letter signed by the Deputy Registrar of Visva Bharati had alleged that Professor Sen’s residence was built on an area, which covered extra 13 decimals of land.
Professor Sen had called the contents of the letter “frivolous”. The economist had said that he was “very much irritated” by the developments. “This is my residence which was built on leased land from Visva-Bharati in the 1940s. The land was leased out to us for 100 years. Some of the land was also bought by my father from the market following all rules and regulations. There was no danger of overstaying,” Professor Sen said.
The allegations against Professor Sen were refuted by the Visva Bharati University Faculty Association.
“The allegation of unauthorised occupation of the land of Visva-Bharati made by Bidyut Chakraborty, Vice-Chancellor, Visva-Bharati, against Amartya Sen is evidently false,” Kausik Bhattacharya, Secretary, VBUFA said in a statement on Thursday.
Professor Bhattacharya added that on three sides Professor Sen’s land was surrounded by private land and the remaining side was adjacent to PWD road. There was no land owned by Visva-Bharati, adjacent to Professor Sen’s land.
“We are judges and therefore, cannot act like Mughals of a bygone era ... the writ courts in the guise of doing justice cannot transcend the barriers of law,” the High Court of Karnataka observed while setting aside an order of a single judge, who in 2016 had extended the lease of a public premises allotted to a physically challenged person to 20 years contrary to 12-year period stipulated in the law.