HD Kumaraswamy hits out at Karnataka Minister for ordering recovery of 281 acres of HMT land
Bengaluru, Aug 13: Union Minister for Steel and Heavy Industries H D Kumaraswamy on Tuesday hit out at Karnataka Minister Eshwar Khandre over his administrative note giving 'clear instructions' to the state forest department to initiate measures to recover 281 acres from Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT) Limited contending that it was a forest land.
Kumaraswamy asked the Forest Minister to "shed his pettiness" and cooperate with him to revive ‘the pride of Bengaluru’, which once ruled the watch market with 90 per cent market share but now was on the verge of closure.
“Doesn’t the pitiable condition of this PSU bring tears to your eyes, which had once captured 90 per cent of the market? Don’t you take pride in Karnataka? Should we come to power to close such plants? Mr Khandre, shed this pettiness,” he told reporters here.
He was referring to Khandre’s August nine administrative note where he cited the June 11, 1896 gazette notification showing that 599 acres in the survey number 1 in Peenya-Jalahalli in Bengaluru city was forest land. He said there are no records to show that the said land was gifted to the HMT as has been said.
Citing the Supreme Court ruling, “Once a forest is always a forest – Environment is more important than civil rights”, the Forest Minister had asked the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest, Wildlife and Ecology department) to initiate steps to recover 281 acres of vacant land out of 599 acres of HMT land.
Khandre’s move came days after Kumaraswamy visited HMT Limited and had a meeting with its officials for its revival.
Rubbishing the Forest Minister’s claim, Kumaraswamy, the JD(S) second-in-command, said the HMT plant that was visited by the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, former Prime Ministers Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi was set up by acquiring the land way back in 1958-59 and 1968-70.
According to him, the HMT made a profit of Rs 270 crore in 1970. With these funds, the HMT set up its units in Hyderabad, Uttarakhand, Ajmer and Kerala.
The tractor manufacturing unit in Pinjore town in Haryana was a big success, the Minister said, adding that the Tatas came up with its Titan brand and took away 350 engineers from HMT to their unit, which led to the downfall of the central PSU.
Kumaraswamy wondered why the state Forest Minister was "silent" for so many years.
“Why did the Minister write a note after remaining silent for so many decades? Can land be recovered on the basis of the Minister's ‘clear instruction’? On what basis he gave directions? Does he know the subject?” the Union Minister sought to know.
He said the portfolio he is entrusted with has 40 CPSUs. Out of them 27 are shut down and others are on the verge of closure.
He said he has been struggling hard to give a new lease of life to these PSUs. He added that he firmly believed that he can convince Prime Minister Narendra Modi to revive them.
“When I am putting in so much effort, all of a sudden you issue a note to take back land, which is worth Rs 10,000 crore,” Kumaraswamy said.
Underlining that the HMT paid for the land it owned, the Union Minister, citing documents, pointed out that on November 25, 1960 the Chief Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru was consulted in the matter for the release of land reports that the total area available for disposal was 283.57 acre as against 260 acres requested for HMT limited and the CCF said he has no objection to its grant.
“Nothing was taken for free. Everything was paid for. There is clarity here,” Kumaraswamy said, citing documents.
Questioning Khandre’s "intervention" in the matter, the Union Minister said: “You have given orders to acquire vacant land in a hurry. Whom you want to give this land to?”
He also read out a gazette notification citing the donation of land to HMT during the time of Mysuru Maharaja.
The JD(S) state chief sought to know how the property tax is collected from the HMT Limited if it was forest land.
“Don’t spoil the state for your grudge against HDK (Kumaraswamy). I am also trying to improve the Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant. Cooperate with us. This loot is enough now,” he said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
