Comments of Dr.

Ashok Khemka, IAS, formerly Director General, Land Records and

Consolidation of Land Holdings, Haryana and Inspector General of Registration, Haryana, on the Report of the Committee constituted by the State Government vide order No. 1/121/20121SII dated 19.10.2012 to inquire into the issues raised by Dr. Ashok Khemka, IAS, the then DGLR -cum- DGCH -cum- IGR, Haryana.

Date:

21st May, 2013.

Author: Dr. ASHOK KHEMKA, IAS

1|Page

Page 2 of 105

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 7 COMPLETELY STONEWALLED - NO RECORD OR INFORMATION PROVIDED. ................................................ 7 CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 10 VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ....................................................................................... 10 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM ........................................................................................................................ 10 NEMO IN PROPRIA CAUSA JUDEX, ESSE DEBET ............................................................................................ 11 BIAS OF SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN .............................................................................................................. 12 BIAS OF SHRI K.K. JALAN....................................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 18 DELIBERATE INACTION OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT ON THE REPORTED LAND SCAMS. ............................. 18 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 VILLAGE BAAD-GUJJAR (TEHSIL MANESAR) .............................................................................................. 18 VILLAGE ROZKA-GUJAR (TEHSIL SOHNA) AND VILLAGE KOT (TEHSIL BALLABHGARH)......................................... 19 VILLAGE ANKHIR .................................................................................................................................. 24 VILLAGE CHIRSI ................................................................................................................................... 25 VILLAGE KALESAR (TEHSIL CHHACHHRAULI) AND MALIKPUR BANGAR (TEHSIL BILASPUR) .................................. 28 NOT NOTIFYING HARYANA REGISTRATION RULES, 2012 UNDER SECTION 69 (2) OF REGISTRATION ACT, 1908. .... 30 CWP NO. 17775 OF 2010 IN PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ..................................................... 33

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................................ 39 FREQUENT TRANSFERS AND MENTAL TORTURE AS PUNISHMENT ............................................................ 39 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 DIRECTOR GENERAL, SOCIAL JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT ............................................................................ 39 MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARTRON ........................................................................................................ 41 DIRECTOR GENERAL, LAND RECORDS AND CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ...................................................... 43 MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. .................................... 46

CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................................................ 47 SKY LIGHT HOSPITALITYS LAND-LICENSING TRANSACTION IN VILLAGE SHIKOHPUR, SECTOR 83, GURGAON. ................................................................................................................................................ 47 6.1 REGISTRATION OF DEED ON 12.02.2008 FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FOR ` 7.5 CRORES ..................................... 49 6.1.1 Offences under the Registration Act and the Indian Penal Code ................................................ 51 6.1.2 Offences under the Companies Act ............................................................................................ 52 6.2 ISSUE OF LETTER OF INTENT ON 28.03.2008 BY THE DTCP FOR GRANT OF COMMERCIAL COLONY LICENSE FOR 2.701 ACRES OUT OF TOTAL AREA OF 3.53 ACRES.................................................................................................. 55 TH 6.3 COLLABORATION AGREEMENT DATED 5 AUGUST, 2008 WITH M/S DLF RETAIL DEVELOPERS LIMITED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL COLONY AT THE SITE. ............................................................................................ 58 6.4 GRANT OF COLONY LICENSE NO. 203 OF 2008 FOR COMMERCIAL USE BY DTCP ON 15.12.2008 FOR TWO YEARS UP TO 14.12.2010. ................................................................................................................................ 65

Page 3 of 105
6.5 RENEWAL OF COMMERCIAL COLONY LICENSE BY DTCP FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS ON 18.01.2011 UP TO 14.12.2012. .................................................................................................................................................. 66 6.5.1 Offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ................................................................................ 69 6.6. APPROVAL FOR PERMISSION TO TRANSFER COMMERCIAL COLONY LICENSE NO. 203 OF 2008 BY DTCP IN FAVOUR OF M/S DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. ON 03.04.2012. ................................................................................................... 69 6.7 REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED OF LAND ALONG WITH COLONY LICENSE FOR ` 58 CRORES ON 18.09.2012. ......... 72 6.8 BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF M/S ONKARESHWAR PROPERTIES ........................................................................ 73 6.9 PUBLIC ECONOMICS OF CRONY CAPITALISM............................................................................................. 73 6.10 MANDATORY DECLARATION OF NON-CONFLICT OF INTEREST BY PUBLIC SERVANTS ........................................ 76 6.11. PERFORMANCE AUDIT BY CAG .............................................................................................................. 77 CHAPTER 7 ................................................................................................................................................ 79 THE TWO ORDERS EXPLAINED................................................................................................................... 79 ORDER DATED 12 OCTOBER, 2012 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION. ............................. 79 CHAPTER 8 ................................................................................................................................................ 85 THE TWO ORDERS EXPLAINED (CONTINUED) ............................................................................................ 85 ORDER DATED 15 OCTOBER, 2012 OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CONSOLIDATION ................................. 85 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 WHETHER THE ACO IS CONFERRED WITH THE POWERS OF AC2G (ASSISTANT COLLECTOR SECOND GRADE) UNDER WHETHER THE IMPUGNED LAND COMPRISED IN KHASRA NUMBER 730 WAS COVERED UNDER SECTION 14 (1) APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 30 OF THE CONSOLIDATION ACT OF 1948 .......................................................... 96 ALLEGATION OF BEING SELECTIVE ....................................................................................................... 97 PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE............................................................................................................. 99 POST-TRANSFER ORDER.......................................................................................................................102 ADVICE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING...............................................................105
THE PUNJAB LAND REVENUE ACT? ...................................................................................................................... 87 NOTIFICATION .................................................................................................................................................. 94
TH TH

Page 4 of 105

List of Annexures
Annexure Description No. C-1 Order No. IGR/2012/7185-88 dated 12th October, 2012 of the Inspector General of Registration, Haryana C-2 Order No. EA4/2012/4620-21 dated 15th October, 2012 of the Director General, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana C-3 Letter No. PS/DGCH/2012/4619 dated 12th October, 2012 C-4 Set of correspondence seeking record/ information C-5 Order dated 22nd August, 2012 u/s 42 w.r.t. village BaadGujjar (Tehsil Manesar) C-6 Order dated 22nd August, 2012 u/s 42 w.r.t. village RozkaGujar (Tehsil Sohna) C-7 Order dated 23rd August, 2012 u/s 42 w.r.t. village Kot (Tehsil Ballabhgarh) C-8 Order dated 12.04.2013 of the National Green Tribunal in Application No. 4 of 2013 (Suo Moto) C-9 Memo No. PS/DGLR/2012/6954-55 dated 5th October, 2012 C-10 Order dated 21st September, 2012 u/s 42 w.r.t. village Chirsi (District Faridabad) C-11 Interim orders dated 19.10.2012, 16.11.2012 and 1.12.2012 of the Honble High Court in CWP No. 21217 of 2012 C-12 Forwarding letter No. IGR/2012/7184 dated 11.10.2012 along with Haryana Registration Rules, 2012, No. IGR-7113 for notification u/s 69 (2). C-13 Order No. IGR/2012/6222-6316 dated 14.09.2012 of the IGR C-14 Order No. IGR/2012/6855-6951 dated 5.10.2012 of the IGR C-15 Memo No. JA/DGCH/2012/2298 dated 25.07.2012 C-16 Memo No. 2028-ARS-1-2012/9024 dated 16.08.2012 C-17 Additional written statement of August, 2012 in CWP No. 17775 of 2010 C-18 IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954; IAS (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955 and Notification No. 11031/03/2008-AISII(A) dated 21.072009 applicable for Haryana State. C-19 Letter No. PA/MD HSDC/2012/179 dated 6.12.2012 to Chief Secretary C-20 Letter No. 11/PS-Archives/2013 dated 25.04.20013 to Chief Secretary C-21 Memo No. JA/4348-4457 dated 4.10.2012 Page Nos. 106-107 108-110 111-112 113-132 133-135 136-138 139-140 141-144 145-147 148-150 151-155 156-159

160 161 162-166 167 168-171 172-176

177-178 179-187 188-189

Page 5 of 105

Chapter 1 Introduction

Vide an order No. 1/121/2012-1SII dated 19.10.2012, the State Government had constituted an Inquiry Committee comprising of three senior IAS officers of Haryana, viz, Shri Krishna Mohan, Additional Chief Secretary cumFinancial Commissioner Revenue; Shri K.K. Jalan, Additional Chief Secretary and Shri Rajan Gupta, Principal Secretary. As per the Government order, the Committee was,(i) To ascertain the facts and to inquire into the matter to ascertain acts of omission and commission by various authorities involved with reference to two orders of the undersigned, viz, a) Order No. IGR/2012/7185-88 dated 12th October, 2012 of the Inspector General of Registration, Haryana, at Annexure C-1; and b) Order No. EA4/2012/4620-21 dated 15th October, 2012 of the Director General, Consolidation of Land Holdings, Haryana u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, at Annexure C-2. (ii) To inquire into the issues raised by Dr. Ashok Khemka in his letter No. PS/DGCH/2012/4619 dated 12th October, 2012 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Haryana, at Annexure C-3.

A copy of the said Government order was not endorsed to the undersigned, but was made available on request on the 15 th of January, 2013, after the Committee had finalised and submitted its report to the Chief Secretary.

Page 6 of 105

Though the work of the Committee was to ascertain facts and to inquire into the issues raised by the undersigned in his two orders at Annexures C-1 & C-2 and one letter addressed to the Chief Secretary at Annexure C-3, the Committee for reasons not known did not associate the undersigned or any affected party in any manner at any stage before submitting the Report to the Chief Secretary.

A post-decisional hearing entails all the hazards of pre-judgement and pre-determination. Be that as it may, a copy of the Committees Report was sent to the undersigned for comments vide Memo No. 20/6/13-2S(I)1 dated 1st March, 2013 of the office of the Chief Secretary, Haryana.

At Page 113.

Page 7 of 105

Chapter 2 Completely Stonewalled - No Record or Information Provided.2

On receipt of the Committees Report, certain record or information was sought vide written letters dated 5th March, 2013 addressed to the Administrative Secretaries of a few Departments as below,From Shri Krishna Mohan, IAS (Revenue Department)(i) A copy of all documents registered in any office of Sub-Registrar or Joint Sub-Registrar of the State by the Companies of Mr. Robert Vadra as either vendor or vendee; and (ii) Any representation or appeal or complaint received from Mr. Robert Vadra or M/s DLF or M/s Onkareshwar Properties against the orders passed by the undersigned as Director General, Consolidation of Holdings u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 or as Inspector General of Registration u/s 69 (1) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

From Shri Y.S. Malik, IAS (Industries &Commerce Department)Details of land released from acquisition proceedings or not notified u/s 6 after preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and which were licensed by the Department of Town &Country Planning in the past 10 years.
2

All references cited in this Chapter are at Annexure C-4.

Page 8 of 105

From Shri S.S. Dhillon, IAS (Town &Country Planning and Urban Estates Departments)(i) All relevant files related to the grant, renewal and transfer of licenses to the Companies of Mr. Robert Vadra, including M/s Skylight Hospitality; (ii) Details of land released from acquisition proceedings or not notified u/s 6 after preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and which were licensed by the Department of Town & Country Planning in the past 10 years; (iii) The beneficial ownership of M/s Onkareshwar Properties, a licensee of the Town &Country Planning Department and all the relevant files related to grant, renewal and transfer of licenses to this firm; and (iv) All cases concerning transfer of licenses in the past 10 years.

But the undersigneds efforts were completely stonewalled. The above queries were relevant to offer comprehensive comments on the issues raised, on which the Committee constituted by the State Government was supposed to give findings after ascertaining the facts. Shri Krishna Mohan, IAS, who was the Chairman of the Committee, did not respond at all to the DO letter No. MD/HSDC/2013/25 dated 5.3.2013. Shri S.S. Dhillon, IAS, who is designate Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Haryana, stonewalled the reference made to him vide DO letter No. MD/HSDC/2013/23 dated 5.3.2013 by directing the undersigned to the concerned Directorates. The reference to Mr. Anurag Rastogi, IAS, Director General, Town & Country Planning and Urban Estates vide the undersigneds DO letter No. MD/HSDC/2013/28 dated 11.03.2013 remained unanswered till the date of filing this report to the State Government. The

Page 9 of 105

reference to Mr. Y.S. Malik, IAS, met with an offensive retort, which was not warranted. He called the information sought vide the undersigneds DO letter No. MD/HSDC/2013/24 dated 5.3.2013 unrelated.

The entire set of correspondence with the above Departments and the office of the Chief Secretary seeking record/ information for offering comprehensive comments on the committees report starting fro m 5th March, 2013 to the date of submitting this report are enclosed at Annexure C-4.

A comment on the Committees Report has been attempted from memory and information available in the public domain on the issues arising during the 80-day tenure of the undersigned in the Directorates of Land Records and Consolidation of Land Holdings from July 20th to October 15th, 2012. This period includes a period of one-week spent on compulsory in-service training at Hyderabad. Without the aid of relevant records or files or proper secretarial assistance, offering comprehensive comments on a complex subject such as land and discretionary licensing was no less difficult than attempting to compete in an international sports event with both hands, nay, both legs tied. However, a modest effort is attempted in the public interest.

Page 10 of 105

Chapter 3 Violation of the Rules of Natural Justice

The Committee framed its own issues under six Groups for examination and determination of findings. The Committee instead of answering the reference as per the order dated 19th October, 2012 of the State Government constituting the said Committee decided to frame its own issues which were not only inadequate, but grossly biased with the sole aim to give a clean chit to the land-licensing transactions of M/s Sky Light Hospitality, a Company owned by Mr. Robert Vadra, and to hide from public glare other land-licensing transactions indulged by the Companies owned by Mr. Robert Vadra in collusion with the Departments of the State Government including Town & Country Planning, Urban Estates, Revenue, Industries & Commerce. To ensure that the clean chit to Mr. Robert Vadra looked credible, the indictment of the undersigned was imperative, which was carried out in the crassest manner possible. In the process of indicting the undersigned, the Committee completely departed from the principles of natural justice, viz, a) Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet. No one should be made a judge in his own cause, or the rule against bias. b) Audi alteram partem. Hear the other party, or the rule of fair hearing, or the rule that no one should be condemned unheard.

3.1

Audi alteram partem There were selective leaks from the Committees Report which were

published in the Chandigarh editions dated January 8th & 10th, 2013 of The Hindustan Times. Later, the Committees Report was carried comprehensively in

Page 11 of 105

the Chandigarh edition dated April 22nd, 2013 of The Tribune and in the editions dated April 23rd, 2013 of The Business Line and The Economic Times. The news reports got published in the print media were vilificatory. The intent behind the selective leakage to the chosen few in the print media was to coat the undersigned with tar and feather and to give an impression to the general public that everything was hunky-dory in the land-licensing transactions carried out by the Companies of Mr. Robert Vadra in the State of Haryana. The members of the Committee in their zeal to appease their political masters forgot their true role to act like public servants guided by the rule of law and nothing else. The fundamental rule of natural justice, audi alteram partem, or the rule of fair hearing that no one should be condemned unheard was completely ignored. The undersigned was condemned unheard.

3.2

Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet Following another rule of natural justice, Nemo in propria causa

judex, esse debet, i.e., no one should be made a judge in his own cause, or the rule against bias, Shri Krishna Mohan and Shri K.K. Jalan ought to have disassociated themselves as Chairman and Member of the Committee respectively, since their own acts of commission and omission were under the scanner. Shri Krishna Mohan is the Financial Commissioner Revenue and Shri K.K. Jalan was the Principal Secretary to Government in the Departments of Town & Country Planning and Urban Estates at the relevant point of time when the license of M/s Sky Light Hospitality was wrongly renewed by the Department of Town & Country Planning on the 18th of January, 2011. These two officers could not be expected to be objective or fair and to ascertain the true facts and submit true and complete findings on the land scams in Haryana briefly summarized in the succeeding paras.

Page 12 of 105

3.3

Bias of Shri Krishna Mohan Being the Head of the Revenue Department, Shri Krishna Mohan

failed to act on the various land scam exposures by the undersigned which were duly informed to him. Neither did he take any action against the guilty nor did he approve certain preventive measures recommended by the undersigned to prevent such occurrences in the future. Shri Krishna Mohan could not be expected to act fairly as Chairman of the Committee constituted to probe matters where his own acts of omission were under scrutiny. The following in specific is highlighted below, the details of which are contained in the subsequent chapters (i) By misusing the powers conferred under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, by the State Government upon the Director, Consolidation of Land Holdings, hundreds of crores of Panchayat lands were transferred to newly created realtor companies under the garb of consolidating fragmented land holdings. The undersigned was not allowed by the Revenue Department to apprise the Honble High Court in CWP No. 17775 of 2010 the true nature of the land scam misusing consolidation proceedings. Ultimately, the undersigned filed an additional written statement in the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, describing the true nature of the land scam. A landmark decision dated 6.9.2012 was delivered by the Honble High Court in which the illegal transfers of Panchayat lands worth hundreds of crores to newly created realtor companies were undone. Shri Krishna Mohan did not approve the registration of a criminal case against the two erring IAS officers and the realtor Companies because of the involvement of high and

Page 13 of 105

mighty despite the undersigneds clear recommendations on file after the Courts order.

(ii) Forest and hill areas were being partitioned and mis-appropriated under the garb of consolidation of land holdings in order to grab prime plots near highways for building farm-houses and resorts. The de-notification of Rozka-Gujar and Kot villages along the Gurgaon-Faridabad road adversely affected the black money investments of a large number of political and bureaucratic VIPs. These forests are critical for the protection of the local ecology and environment. A 5-member Bench of the National Green Tribunal took suo moto notice of the matter on January 7, 20133 on the basis of a news article appearing in the Delhi edition of the same date of The Times of India titled, How private players grabbed forest land in the Aravalis? But nothing was done on the undersigneds recommendation on 27.08.2012 on file to order investigation of black money invested through Companies in these forests and hills and to make disclosures of self-interest by officers involved in consolidation proceedings mandatory.

(iii) Usurpation of large Panchayat lands by deliberate under-valuation relative to other lands of the village under consolidation. Vested outside interests purchased cheaper land in the village under consolidation proceedings and obtained favorable exchange with prime Panchayat properties in collusion with consolidation officers. Certain land transactions were of the nature of insider trading by Government functionaries. An example was of village Baad-Gujar in district Gurgaon. The Revenue Department did not proceed

Suo Moto Application No. 4 of 2013.

Page 14 of 105

against the district officers involved in this specific case of Panchayat land grab.

(iv) Panchayat lands were illegally mutated in favour of village proprietors. The modus operandi was to purchase cheaply a share of jointly held land from a co-owner not in possession of the common land and after applying undue influence upon the subordinate revenue officers, take into possession prime Khasra numbers after partition proceedings, resulting in appreciation of the initial investment by several times. In the case of village Ankhir in district Faridabad, the then Deputy Commissioner of Faridabad district supervised the partition proceedings by his junior revenue officer and cornered a prime plot after partitioning Panchayat land in favour of his mother, who is reported to be the paternal aunt of the Honble Chief Minister. No action was taken by Mr. Krishna Mohan on a reference4 sent to him on 5th October, 2012 in this particular matter under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

(v) The Haryana Registration Rules, 2012, framed by the undersigned under section 69(1) of The Registration Act, 1908, to check unauthorized transfers of Gram Panchayat land and to prevent fraudulent or benami transactions were not notified under section 69(2) of the Act without any convincing reason. A shocking case of Panchayat land grab by a very senior IAS officer who had retired from the State Government in the rank of Additional Chief Secretary and who is presently the Chairman of a State regulatory authority

See Annexure C-9.

Page 15 of 105

was brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner Revenue, but there was no action.

(vi) To grab escheated land, possessory rights on the private land of a deceased person were transferred by changing khasra girdawari entries from the past 50-55 years in village Chirsi, district Faridabad, which is now the subject matter of CWP No. 21217 of 2012 in the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Despite a written reference on file on 22.09.2012, no action was taken against the racketeers. Not only this, Shri Krishna Mohan permitted the incorporation of a misleading and contumacious Para No. 28 in the Revenue Departments written reply dated 20.12.2012 of the Revenue Department in CWP No. 21217 of 2012 before the Honble High Court.

All the above issues were raised in Para Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the undersigneds letter at Annexure C-3 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Haryana, and were required to be inquired into by the Committee as per its terms of reference given in the Chief Secretarys order dated 19 th October, 2012. Shri Ashok Yadav, IAS who was the then Special Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, was appointed its Secretary by the Committee. The Chairman and Secretary of the Committee were the senior-most officers posted in the Revenue Department and all references made to the Department were in their personal knowledge. The Chairman and the Secretary had a vested interest in skirting the issues, for otherwise their own acts of omission would have been under the scrutiny of the Committee.

Page 16 of 105

3.4

Bias of Shri K.K. Jalan Shri K.K. Jalan was the Principal Secretary of the Departments of

Town & Country Planning and Urban Estates for over a year in the recent past. Crony capitalism leveraging the grant of colony licenses, change in land-use permissions and release of land under acquisition proceedings is actively promoted in the two Departments. Land initially notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act is released selectively subsequent to some vested interests like builders entering into an agreement to purchase the land from the land owner. Since the land is under acquisition proceedings, the land owner is forced to enter into an agreement to sell his land to the builder at much below its actual market price. After the execution of an agreement to sell, the land is released from acquisition proceedings and the builder is issued colony license on the land released from acquisition proceedings, resulting in windfall profits to the builder. The whole transaction is either routed through or in partnership with the crony.

During the tenure of Mr. K.K. Jalan as Principal Secretary of the Departments of Town & Country Planning and Urban Estates, the commercial colony license of M/s Sky Light Hospitality, the Company owned by Mr. Robert Vadra, was wrongly renewed on 18th January, 2011 for 2.701 acres of land in village Shikohpur, Sector 83, Gurgaon. Mr. K.K. Jalan did not take action on the wrong grant of commercial colony license to M/s Sky Light Hospitality by the Town & Country Planning Department on the 15th of December, 2008. The details of this case are discussed in Chapter 6 of this Report. Mr. K.K. Jalan cannot be expected to adopt an unbiased approach and to inquire fairly into the acts of selective licensing by the Department of Town & Country Planning and selective release of

Page 17 of 105

land under acquisition by the Urban Estates Department, promoting crony capitalism.

It is apparent that such a Committee including a biased Chairman, a biased Member and a biased Secretary cannot be expected to act in an objective, impartial, fair and unbiased manner, while conducting inquiry into the landlicensing scams exposed by the undersigned while posted in the Department of Land Records and Consolidation of Land Holdings. Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done5.

R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233).

Page 18 of 105

Chapter 4 Deliberate Inaction of Revenue Department on the Reported Land Scams.

This Chapter described the issues raised in Para Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the undersigneds letter at Annexure C-3 addressed to the Chief Secretary, which the Committee did not inquire into. There were several modes of abuse of consolidation proceedings as described below. The ultimate aim was to grab valuable Panchayat lands.

4.1

Village Baad-Gujjar (Tehsil Manesar) A copy of the order dated 22nd August, 2012 passed under section 42

of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948) is at Annexure C-5. The order is self-contained and describes how the classification of lands in terms of relative values was exploited by under-valuing Panchayat lands in favour of influential outside private parties. The consolidation proceedings were vitiated by unlawful considerations where some private parties benefitted at the cost of the Gram Panchayat. Individual private parties received excess Panchayat lands due to favorable exchange ratio. The Panchayat lost 53 acres of land in the consolidation exercise. As per record, M/s Ishwar Enterprises, Ravinder Kataria and some of the relatives of former Sarpanches and the present Sarpanch were allotted valuable Panchayat lands abutting the Gurgaon-Tauru road. Even though the Panchayat land was much more valuable, the relative exchange ratio was fixed at 2:1 or 4:1 in favour of the private land owners. Some private parties from outside had purchased village land during consolidation and were acting on behalf of some district officers entrusted with carrying out consolidation proceedings.

Page 19 of 105

4.2

Village Rozka-Gujar (Tehsil Sohna) and Village Kot (Tehsil Ballabhgarh) The Consolidation law that was meant to reverse fragmentation of

agricultural holdings and for preserving the village commons was rampantly abused to allow influential private players get possession of hilly and nonagricultural common lands, including forests in the Aravalis located contiguously south of the Gurgaon-Faridabad road comprising the four villages of Mangar, Bandhwari, Rozka-Gujar and Kot. The region is rich in diverse flora and fauna and is important for the recharge of underground water. Outsiders acquired vast tracts of common hilly land and forests, including the pristine groves of Mangar Bani held sacred by villagers. In the villages of Bandhwari and Mangar, the commonly held hills and forests were already partitioned via the consolidation proceedings. The aims and objects of the Consolidation Act are to consolidate agricultural holdings for the betterment of agriculture, for prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings and for reservation of land for common purposes of the village. Of the total area of 3,184 acres notified for consolidation in village Kot, 2,565 acres fell under common hill area and the inclusion of this portion defeated the purpose of consolidation. Even more blatant was the case of Rozka-Gujar- a uninhabitated village, mostly forested hills located in the Aravalis, forming the main catchment of the Damdama Lake in Gurgaon. Of the 5,744 acres brought under consolidation in this village, close to 4,798 acres were notified under sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA). Under the Forest Conservation Act, land under these two notifications cannot be diverted for any use other than forest related activities without the permission of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. There is

Page 20 of 105

hardly a local whose name figures in the revenue records today as owner. Almost the entire area is purchased by the powerful business-politico-bureaucratic-police lobby with ostensibly no interest in agricultural or cultivation activities. Moreover, some land transactions seemed benami on behalf of a few powerful politicians and bureaucrats. A list of current owners and the beneficial interests behind the Companies buying forests in these villages would expose the game of the land sharks who want to convert the forests into tourism, commercial and other nonforest real estate activities to the detriment of the local ecology and the environment. Since there was no land under agricultural activity, there was no fragment of land to consolidate. The Consolidation Act was converted into a tool for partition. The use of the Consolidation Act to partition the jointly held single khewat land was a grotesque abuse of powers. The consolidation law was misused in many cases earlier, including Mangar which has a sacred forest protected by local Gujjar villagers. The division of commonly held hills in villages Mangar and Bandhwari was completed long ago, enabling outsiders to buy huge chunks of land. With the notification of the Mangar Development Plan-2031, these players were expecting big gains in the form of escalated property prices. Major portions of the land falling under Mangar Development Plan have been bought by influential people and realty majors considering its proximity to the GurgaonFaridabad highway, which has been widened to four lanes. Builders have also bought hundreds of acres of land as the government plans to allow a mega tourism complex here. The consolidation proceedings in the two villages were de-notified at great risk to the personal safety of the undersigned to prevent destruction of ecology and environment by carrying non-forest activities in forests and hills vide orders dated 22nd August, 2012 (village Rozka-Gujar) and 23rd August, 2012 (village Kot). A copy of the two orders is at Annexures C-6 & C-7 respectively.

Page 21 of 105

Interestingly, this site south of the Gurgaon-Faridabad road will be well connected to South Delhi after the proposed widening of the existing 12-20 metre two lane undivided carriageway called Mandi road into a 45-60 metre wide eight lane 9.05 km long corridor for providing ostensibly a new access to Gurgaon and Faridabad from Mehrauli-Gurgaon road via Gwal Pahari village at a cost of ` 597 crores to be funded entirely by the Delhi Development Authority. Though the cost of widening of this 9 km road will be borne by the DDA, the faster access from South Delhi would actually benefit the future eco-tourism development projects along the Gurgaon-Faridabad road towards Damdama Lake. It is worth mentioning here that the funding of the Delhi portion of the Delhi Metro connecting Delhi to NCR regions was not funded by the Delhi Government or DDA, though the Metro connectivity to the NCR regions outside Delhi helped decongest Delhi by providing mass rapid transport. Taking suo moto cognizance of a news report on how common hilly and forest lands in Aravalis is getting fragmented and privatized in the name of consolidation, the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal headed by Honble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar issued notices to the Forest Department and the Pollution Control Board of the State to explain how the forest area is being converted into commercial activity with impunity and in violation of the Indian Forests (Conservation) Act, 1980. The matter is listed as Application No. 4 of 2013 (Suo Moto), Tribunal on its Own Motion Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Consolidation proceeding is distinctly a non-forest activity. A copy of the order dated April 12, 2013 of the National Green Tribunal prohibiting non-forestry or commercial activity in the area in question is at Annexure C-8. The case is listed for 9th July, 2013 before the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi.

Page 22 of 105

A note dated 27th August, 2012 was written by the undersigned to the Financial Commissioner Revenue after taking corrective action in the above three cases. Unfortunately, there was no response to the note from the Revenue Department. The note dated 27.08.2012 written by the undersigned is reproduced below, In light of the abuse of the Consolidation scheme observed in Gurgaon and Faridabad districts by vested business-politicobureaucratic interests, for example as discovered in the villages of Rozka-Gujar (Tehsil Sohna), Baad-Gujjar (Tehsil Manesar) and Kot (Tehsil Ballabhgarh) during my short stay of a month in this Department and in order to put some check, certain measures are strongly recommended to be adopted in all the 51 villages presently under consolidation and in the 133 villages for which notification u/s 14 (1) will be issued in the future: 1. The consolidation scheme should include only agriculture holdings. Uncultivable area like Gair Mumkin Pahaar must be specifically excluded from the consolidation scheme. This presents a scope of immense misuse as was observed in Anangpur (Tehsil Faridabad), Kot (Ballabhgarh), Rozka-Gujar (Sohna) etc.

2. The relative valuation of the land included in the scheme of consolidation belonging to Panchayat or Government should be finalized by the Consolidation Officer only after taking the approval of the Panchayats Department with respect to Panchayat land and the respective Government Department with respect to Government

Page 23 of 105

land to prevent the rampant abuse of relatively undervaluing land belonging to Panchayat/ Government Department. The property sharks invest by buying relatively inferior land in the village under consolidation so as to manage exchange of the land purchased with two to four times the Panchayat/ Government land sometimes located along the main roads, thereby multiplying their amounts invested by several times within a few months. This was observed in Baad-Gujar (Manesar).

3. The statutory authorities under the Consolidation Act, i.e., Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Assistant Director

(Consolidation), Divisional Commissioner and Director (Consolidation of Holdings) must not own or have any interest, either direct or indirect, in the village under consolidation. It was observed that some senior public servants misused their position for a favorable exchange for themselves or their relatives or their Companies floated for this purpose. Huge investments of black money and illgotten money have been made through Companies in the purchase of land of some villages in Gurgaon-Faridabad districts to benefit from the consolidation scheme. A declaration of non-conflict of interest must be made by all public servants involved in the Consolidation scheme to the Government. Like insider trading, nondeclaration of any conflict of interest should be made a penal offence by amending the Consolidation Act.

Further, it is recommended that huge investments made in the purchase of land of villages Kot (Ballabhgarh), Anangpur

Page 24 of 105

(Faridabad), Bandhwari (Sohna) and Rozka-Gujar (Sohna) through Companies must be got investigated to find out the actual owners and interests behind these investing Companies. It seems that huge amounts of black money have been invested in the purchase of land in these villages through Companies. Their real owners need to be disclosed through an independent investigation. Sd/(Dr. Ashok Khemka) D.G.C.H. 27.08.2012 Addl.Chief Secretary cum- F.C. (Revenue)

4.3

Village Ankhir During the undersigneds inspection of the land records of village

Ankhir of district Faridabad, a glaring case of mis-appropriation of 734 acres of Panchayat land came to notice, which was referred to the Financial Commissioner Revenue for appropriate action under section 16 of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The case was also reported to the Principal Secretary of the Development & Panchayats Department so that effective steps are taken to protect the interests of the Gram Panchayat. A copy of the reference made vide Memo No. PS/DGLR/2012/6954-55 dated 5th October, 2012 is at Annexure C-9.

The Panchayat land comprising some of the most prime properties of Faridabad was partitioned to favour a few VVIPs. Sector 21 of Faridabad is part of Ankhir estate and by virtue of this partition; some VVIPs managed to corner prime specific khasra numbers worth several crores, abutting the main roads from HUDA

Page 25 of 105

Gymkhana Club of Sector 21 to Surajkund and Badkhal Lake. One such VVIP benefitting from the second partition proceedings was Smt. Krishna Kanta, mother of Shri Praveen Kumar, IAS, who was the Deputy Commissioner of Faridabad at that time. Smt. Krishna Kanta is reported to be the paternal aunt of the present Chief Minister of the State. As Deputy Commissioner, it was the duty of Shri Praveen Kumar to protect the interests of the Gram Panchayat in the partition proceedings before his subordinate revenue officer. In a reference under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the Financial Commissioner Revenue was requested to refer the matter to the Collector under section 13-A of the Punjab Act No. 18 of 1961 for decision on title of the Panchayat land partitioned. He was also requested to annul the mutations entered. But to the best knowledge of the undersigned, no action was taken in the written reference dated 5.10.2012.

4.4

Village Chirsi In this village of district Faridabad under consolidation, the Assistant

Consolidation Officer (ACO) acting under influence abetted the mis-appropriation of land belonging to a deceased person. The order of the ACO changing the possession entry in the Khasra Girdawari on 17.02.2011 of 51 Kanals 7 Marlas (= 6.5 acres) of precious land in district Faridabad owned by a person who had died on 22.03.1978 in favour of a 40-45 year old local Chartered Accountant, purporting to act as Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, was set aside by the undersigned by order dated 21st September, 2012 under section 42 of the Consolidation Act. A copy of the said order dated 21.09.2012 is at Annexure C-10. The party affected by the order challenged the order dated 21.09.2012 of the undersigned under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, in a Civil Writ Petition No. 21217 of 2012 before the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court. A copy of the interim orders dated 19.10.2012, 16.11.2012

Page 26 of 105

and 1.12.2012 of the Honble High Court in CWP No. 21217 of 2012 is at Annexure C-11. The order of the undersigned at Annexure C-10 was fully vindicated after the admission of fact in Para 28 of the States reply dated 20.12.2012 that the petitioner was not in possession of the land prior to the order dated 17.02.2011 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, which was set aside by the undersigned vide the impugned order at Annexure C-10. The States reply exposed another land scam, whereby a total of 105 Kanals 15 Marlas of land belonging to the man who died on 22.03.1978 was sold on various dates, 24.10.1991, 16.5.1996 and 5.5.2007, through a GPA dated 7.9.1989 registered after his death. Instead of getting the matter criminally investigated to expose the master minds of such kind of land scams which is impossible without involvement of top persons in the State Government, the Revenue Department filed a misleading and contumacious statement in the CWP No. 21217 of 2012 that the Assistant Consolidation Officer was vested with the powers of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. This was done to protect Mr. Robert Vadras land transaction in village Shikohpur, district Gurgaon. Even the Deputy Commissioner of Faridabad did not act after an advice in the impugned order dated 21.09.2012, reproduced as under: The above land may be escheated to the State Government through Revenue Department. The unauthorized occupant of the said land may be got evicted under the Public Premises Act. The land may be put on lease through public auction and the proceeds of the auction will be deposited in Government Treasury. A separate statement of accounts will be maintained for remitting the mesne profits from the land to the actual owner as determined in the civil suit. Annul the mutations sanctioned earlier on account of registered sale deeds through General Power of Attorney after the death of Bishan Dass

Page 27 of 105

chela Narain Dass on 22.3.1978. Such other land may also escheat to the State Government as above.

A comprehensive note dated 22.09.2012 was also sent on file to the Financial Commissioner Revenue as below, but there was no response till the date of relinquishing office on 15.10.2012. Subject: HkwisUnz

flag cuke fckunkl psyk ukjk;.knkl

I bring to notice an order made by Shri Dalbir Singh, Assistant Consolidation Officer, Gurgaon on 17.02.2011 correcting an entry in the khasra girdawari from the last 50-55 years of village Chirsi, Tehsil Faridabad, thereby according undue favour to a Chartered Accountant called Bhupinder Singh, aged 40-45 years. This land should have been escheated to the State Government by the District Administration, since the owner had died on 22-03-1978. The succession claimants are disputed. The correction in khasra girdawari was made without jurisdiction and powers of Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade. The possession has been fraudulently recorded as "ckotg

uksrksM fcyk yxku ckjg dCtk nsjhuk

(due to

betterment of field without land revenue of very old possession) in a malafide manner to wrongly benefit Bhupinder Singh, so as to enable him to claim title of the land by virtue of adverse possession in a civil suit. This single land racket is worth an estimated `15.00 crores. It is revealed that the ACO is related to a powerful Minister and the beneficiary, Bhupinder Singh, is reported to be very close to some senior IAS officers. I cannot disclose the names. The ACO is reported to have acted under influence. The racket servants. I request that the matter be placed before

Page 28 of 105

the Honble Chief Minister for his knowledge. I am threatened with adverse action and transfer in case an order is made against such racketeering. Overcoming the fear, I have passed a revisionary order exercising the powers vested in me under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The ACO is also charge-sheeted under Rule 7 of the HCS (P&A) Rules. I pray for protection for doing my duty without fear and favour as required of a public servant. Sd/(Dr. Ashok Khemka, IAS) Director General, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana. 22.09.2012 Shri Krishna Mohan, ACS cum- FC (R)

4.5

Village Kalesar (Tehsil Chhachhrauli) and Malikpur Bangar (Tehsil Bilaspur) During inspection of the land records of two villages in district

Yamuna Nagar, Kalesar and Malikpur Bangar, it came to notice that large areas of Panchayat lands in the State were wrongly mutated in favour of proprietors, relying upon some instructions issued by the Development & Panchayats Department vide Memo No. S-1-2005/23620-23800 dated 6.9.2005 and 10.01.2006. Though the said instructions were reported to be subsequently withdrawn by the Development & Panchayats Department, but the mutations of Panchayat lands in favour of proprietors were not reversed. Meanwhile a large portion of such illegally mutated Panchayat lands were purchased by VVIP politicians and bureaucrats from the co-sharers at dirt cheap prices and specific

Page 29 of 105

prime Khasra numbers were taken into possession after getting the commonly held land partitioned by exercising influence upon junior Revenue officers. Another modus operandi adopted was to transfer the possessory rights on Panchayat lands without authorization. In some cases, the unauthorized occupants on Panchayat lands were industrial houses and senior bureaucrats. A particular shocking case was of a senior IAS officer retried in the rank of Additional Chief Secretary and now re-employed as Chairman of a regulatory body. He is reported to have constructed a building near the Kalesar rest house on Panchayat land [Khasra numbers 90//8/2, 12/1) in the name of his nephew. The modus operandi adopted was brought to the notice of the Revenue Department vide the undersigneds letter No. IGR/2012/7184 dated 11th October, 2012 while forwarding the Haryana Registration Rules, 2012, for notification under section 69 (2) of the Registration Act to stop unauthorized transfers of Panchayat/ Shamilat deh land in the future, but the Revenue Department maintained a discomfortingly unholy silence. A copy of the said reference dated 11th October, 2012 to the Revenue Department is at Annexure C-12. A total of 1,289 acres of Panchayat land in village Kalesar (Tehsil Chhachhrauli) were illegally mutated in favour of proprietors, of which 318 acres were found to be in unauthorized possession of private persons as per the village land records. These illegal possessions were being purchased at throw-away prices by VVIPs through registered deeds. In village Malikpur Bangar (Tehsil Bilaspur), 146 acres of Shamilat deh land were found to be in unauthorized possession of private persons as per the village land records. A list of Panchayat lands mutated during the years 2005 and 2006 in the State must be compiled by the Revenue Department to know the true nature and extent of mis-appropriation of Panchayat lands. A judicial inquiry was recommended to inquire into the continuing largescale mis-appropriation of Panchayat lands despite large number of adverse judicial verdicts in the matter.

Page 30 of 105

4.6

Not notifying Haryana Registration Rules, 2012 under section 69 (2) of Registration Act, 1908. Various steps were taken at the level of the undersigned to stop the

mis-appropriation of Panchayat lands. Instructions were issued under section 69 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908, to all Registrars and Sub-Registrars of the State vide order No. IGR/2012/6222-6316 dated 14.09.2012 (Annexure C-13), wherein it was ordered that in light of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Gram Panchayat Sidh vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 491 and Gram Panchayat Nurpur vs. State of Punjab 1997 (1) PLJ 268 and reiterated by the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Gram Panchayat Kheri Kankar vs. State of Haryana in C.W.P. No. 15750 of 2007 vide its interim order dated 22.08.2012, no document involving any kind of transfer of immovable property of Gram Panchayat will be registered in the Registering Offices of Haryana unless the same was approved by the Panchayats Department as per the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The instruction dated 14.09.2012 was placed on record of the Honble High Court in CWP No. 15750 of 2007 on 18.09.2012 in compliance with an interim order dated 22.08.2012 of the Honble High Court. A copy of the said instruction dated 14.09.2012 was also marked to the Revenue Department. Similarly, to prevent transfers of unauthorized occupation of Gram Panchayat/ Shamilat deh lands, instructions under section 69 (1) of the registration Act, 1908, were circulated to all the registrars and sub-registrars of the State vide Memo No. IGR/2012/68556951 dated 5th October, 2012 (Annexure C-14) that no transfer of possessory rights on Gram Panchayat/ Shamilat deh land would be registered, unless the same

Page 31 of 105

was authorized by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat and approved by the Deputy Commissioner cum- Registrar of the district.

To give the executive instructions the shape of statutory Rules, the Haryana Registration Rules, 2012 were framed under section 69 (1) of The Registration Act, 1908 and sent to the Revenue Department for notification under section 69 (2). Rules 2 & 3 of the Haryana Registration Rules, 2012 sought to put a curb on the mis-appropriation of Panchayat lands. To prevent fraudulent transactions where a party sells the same property more than once or 'benami' transactions where black money is recycled to evade the clutches of law, Rule 4 of The Haryana Registration Rules, 2012, was framed to introduce the UIDAl's Aadhaar numbers for individuals and CIN issued by MCA-21 for Corporates so as to uniquely identify the vendors and the vendees. Use of Aadhaar and CIN would have helped identify all immovable properties of an individual or Corporate across the State. Rule 4 would have helped to identify the vendors and vendees through the unique Aadhaar/ CIN, which was planned to be incorporated in the registered document and captured by the HARIS software. It was proposed that Rule 4 would be brought into force after a year with effect from the 1st of October, 2013, so as to give ample time to the prospective vendors/ vendees to obtain Aadhaar numbers through any registrar of UIDAL.

The Haryana Registration Rules, 2012 bearing Notification No. IGR7113 dated 10.10.20126 was submitted to the Revenue Department for approval and notification in the official gazette as required under section 69 (2) of the Registration Act, 1908. It was extremely disappointing to learn from a news story
6

See Pages 158-159.

Page 32 of 105

appearing in the Chandigarh edition dated May 9, 2013 of The Hindustan Times that the Haryana Registration Rules, 2012 was not approved by the Revenue Department for notification in the Official Gazette. This action of the Revenue Department as reported in the media if true, would also be willfully reneging on a commitment made to the Honble High Court on 18.09.2012 in CWP No. 15750 of 2007 to stop the unauthorized transfers of ownership and possessory rights of Gram Panchayat lands by registration in the future. A small but powerful lobby of politicians and bureaucrats having vested interests in Panchayat lands succeeded in stifling a good legislative reform that would have helped to prevent misappropriation of Panchayat lands in the future. The Aadhaar numbers of vendors and vendees were introduced in the registered deeds as per the recommendations of the Department of Land Resources, Government of India and had the Rules been notified, the incorporation of Aadhaar/ CIN numbers in the registered deeds would have helped to curb fraudulent and benami transactions in immovable properties to a large extent. When thousands of crores of public money are being spent in providing unique Aadhaar numbers to the countrys residents, it is not understandable why Aadhaar numbers should not be made compulsory for big value transactions like registration of immovable properties when the same Aadhaar number is made compulsory for small value transactions like remittance of scholarship money, social security benefits or domestic gas subsidies. No right thinking citizen can disagree with the Haryana Registration Rules introduced on October 10, 2012 by the Inspector General of Registration. A copy of the Haryana Registration Rules, 2012, dated October 10, 2012 which was sent to the Revenue Department for notification vide forwarding letter dated October 11, 2012 is at Annexure C-12.

Page 33 of 105

4.7

CWP No. 17775 of 2010 in Punjab & Haryana High Court The undersigned had taken charge of the Department of Land

Records and Consolidation of Holdings upon his transfer from HARTRON on the 19th of July, 2012. A Civil Writ Petition No. 17775 of 2010 titled as Khushi Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. was listed before the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court on the 3rd of August, 2012. On a review of the reply filed earlier in the Honble High Court on 1st February, 2011, it was observed that the reply was a halftruth and did not disclose the full and complete truth. There was gross abuse of powers by the then Directors of Consolidation under section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. A reference was made to the State Government vide Memo No. JA/DGCH/2012/2298 dated July 25, 2012 (Annexure C-15). Some 24 acres of precious Panchayat lands comprising of prime Gurgaon properties in 17 different cases were transferred to newly created realtor Companies by two former Directors of the Department. The market worth of the Panchayat lands transferred was between 800 and 1,000 crores of rupees. The realtor Companies with no activity before or after the illegal transfers of lands were mere vehicles to transfer the land to actual builders at hefty premiums. The beneficial ownership of these Companies would have been bared upon a criminal investigation. A criminal case was, therefore, recommended. Instead of registering a criminal case, the Revenue Department vide Memo No. 2028-ARS-1-2012/9024 dated 16.08.2012 (Annexure C-16) directed the

undersigned to await the decision of the Honble High Court in the pending Civil Writ Petition case and to file additional reply in consultation with the Advocate General and after approval of the vetted reply by the Government. A draft additional statement was prepared and after vetting was sent to the Revenue Department for approval. There was no response from the Revenue Department. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the additional written statement at Annexure C-

Page 34 of 105

17 was filed in the Honble High Court. Approval was never forthcoming from the Revenue Department. The final judgment delivered by the Honble High Court on 6th September, 2012 in CWP No. 17775 of 2010 fully vindicated the additional written statement submitted to the Honble High Court by the undersigned. The judgment was scathing against the corrupt practices of the then Directors (Consolidation) in wrongly benefitting some fly-by-night Companies created overnight for this purpose at the cost of the Gram Panchayats. A portion of the judgment in CWP No. 17775 of 2010 is reproduced below,-

The facts of this case, to be narrated and discussed hereinafter, open the pandora box and put a question mark on the act and conduct, efficiency and integrity of the office of Director Consolidation of the State of Haryana exercising powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 [for short the Act]. .

Hence, the present writ petition is found to be meritorious and the same is hereby allowed and the impugned orders (AnnexureP-7 to P26) are hereby quashed. Since we are dealing with a public interest litigation and have found that the Director Consolidation, who happens to be senior officer of the State of Haryana, had passed the impugned orders without jurisdiction about whom an observation has also been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.15130 of 2009 that before parting with the order, I have to observe that the land falling in Shamilat Deh that is under the management and control of Gram Panchayat which is

Page 35 of 105

required to be used for common purposes is being dealt with by the authorities casually, de hors the statutory provisions and de hors the interest of the Gram Sabha. One such example has been set up by Mr. Anil Kumar, IAS, Director, Consolidation, Haryana, Panchkula, who, in total abuse of powers and authority vested by law has allowed exchange of land that belongs to the Gram Panchayat, we feel that facts of the present case appears to be a tip of an iceberg as numerous orders might have been passed by the Director Consolidation with regard to the exchange of Gram Panchayat land with the colonizers/builders or even individual persons. We, thus, deem it appropriate to direct all the Divisional Commissioners in the State of Haryana to prepare list of all such cases decided in the past, under Section 42 of the Act, wherein Panchayat land has been ordered to be exchanged with the land of the private parties, while exercising powers under Section 42 of the Act and without specific prior approval of the Government of Haryana much-less the department of Development and Panchayats. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Haryana Government for transmitting it further to all the Divisional Commissioners in the State of Haryana for compliance, who are further directed to complete the aforesaid task within a period of six months from today and apprise this Court with the status report, which shall be placed on record of this case.

Even though the Honble High Court passed scathing strictures against the then Directors (Consolidation) and quashed the impugned orders of the then Directors (Consolidation) at Annexures P-7 to P-26 to the writ petition, wrongly transferring Panchayat lands to newly created fly-by-night Companies, the

Page 36 of 105

Committee predictably did not record any finding taking the false alibi that the matter was sub-judice. The orders of the Directors (Consolidation) at Annexures P7 to P-26 to the writ petition wrongly transferring Panchayat lands were quashed in the judgment and nothing further remained to be adjudicated upon qua these orders of the then Directors (Consolidation). I reproduce a note dated 11th October, 2012 submitted to the Financial Commissioner Revenue in the matter explaining why a criminal case must be registered and investigated by the CBI.

Subject:

CWP No. 17775 of 2010, Khushi Ram and Ors. Versus

State of Haryana & Ors. In compliance with the orders dated 06.09.2012 in C.W.P. No. 17775 of 2010, orders were issued to all the Deputy Commissioners who are also Assistant Directors Consolidation to submit all cases where panchayat lands were transferred to private parties under sections 42 or 21 of the Consolidation Act along with the original case files (Memo No.JA/4519-4540 dated 9.10.2012). In addition Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, has been directed to cancel the 17 mutations in light of the orders of the Honble High Court (Memo No. JA/4343 dated 4.10.2012). The office of Financial Commissioner Revenue has also addressed a letter dated 25.09.2012 to the Divisional Commissioners of the Sate, but the contents of the letter are not clear to me. The file may be forwarded to the Chief Secretary as per the directions of the Honble High Court. I reiterate that this matter calls for criminal investigation by an independent agency like C.B.I. to probe various aspects like;

Page 37 of 105

1.

Who were behind the Companies benefitting from the transfer of

prime Panchayat land? Some companies were registered a few days before the application u/s 42 was made to the Director Consolidation with total paid-up capital of rupees one lakh. 2. How come the Director Consolidation passed the order without

jurisdiction within a span of just 10 days and after 50 years of the completion of consolidation proceedings? 3. Assent given by the Sarpanch or Panch to the land transfer

without resolution of the Gram Panchayat in the proceedings u/s 42 before the Director Consolidation. 4. Was there any illegal consideration/gratification to the Director

Consolidation or any other public servant? It is the duty of the State to register an FIR when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice. The Honble High Court has passed severe strictures against the conduct of the officers. In a similar matter in C.W.P. No. 2163 of 2011 titled as Mehardin & Ors. Versus Smt. Medha & Ors. and in L.P.A. No.1073 of 2011 titled as Smt. Medha versus Mehardin and others, the Honble High Court has ordered registration of an F.I.R. Sd/(Dr. Ashok Khemka) Director General Consolidation 11.10.2012 ACS -cum- FCR

It is unlikely that similar orders passed by Directors (Consolidation) or Divisional Commissioners under section 42 of the Consolidation Act illegally transferring Panchayat lands to private persons would be submitted to the Honble

Page 38 of 105

High Court as directed in the order 6.9.2012 in CWP No. 17775 of 2010, since the petitioners in the Public Interest Litigation would have lost interest in the matter for reasons that cannot be described in this Report. The action of the Committee and the Revenue Department in not approving registration of an F.I.R. against the guilty and maintaining an unholy and discomforting silence forebodes ill for good governance in the State.

Page 39 of 105

Chapter 5 Frequent Transfers and Mental Torture as Punishment

This Chapter is about Para Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of the undersigneds letter at Annexure C-3 addressed to the Chief Secretary, against which the Committee did not record its findings. The contents in these Paras are about the postings and frequent transfers used as a weapon to dehumanize and trample upon upright conduct if not in conformity with what is expected. As per Notification No. 11031/03/2008-AIS-II(A)7 dated 21.07.2009 applicable for Haryana State of the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, read with rule 4 (1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 at Annexure C-18, the minimum tenure on a post is two years. Pre-mature transfer before the completion of the minimum tenure after the notification dated 21.07.2009 is illegal. Totally disregarding the provisions of the statutory Regulation, the undersigned was transferred four times in less than one year in the past. The last two postings were not commensurate with the undersigneds seniority in the Indian Administrative Service. The last four transfers in less than one year are described below,-

5.1

Director General, Social Justice & Empowerment While posted as Director General of Social Justice & Empowerment,

the undersigned with the help of National Informatics Center and the participating Banks operationalized the Direct Benefits Transfer Scheme and transferred 550 crore rupees amounting to 5 months of social security benefits directly into two million bank accounts, which were newly created and successfully integrated
7

See Pages 174-176.

Page 40 of 105

digitally with the database of beneficiaries. This was a unique achievement, for which the State of Haryana received the SKOCH Financial Inclusion award in the year 2012. The on-line maintenance of beneficiaries database and transfer of benefits directly into the bank accounts weeded out nearly 100,000 bogus/fictitious beneficiaries, saving the State exchequer ` 75 crores on annual basis. Whereas, the Aadhaar based DBT implementation in 43 districts of the country could achieve a transfer of just ` 40 crores in the first three months of its implementation. Despite the good work, the undersigned was unceremoniously transferred out of the Department because the undersigned resisted an illegal order of the then Principal Secretary reinstating the employee in service who was removed from service by an order dated 4.11.009 of the competent punishing authority. The guilty employee was removed from service after due departmental inquiry on account of embezzlement of over ` 22 lakhs from pension money in district Jhajjar during the years 2001 & 2002. An FIR was registered against the delinquent employee for the offence of embezzlement of Government money. The accused employee is charged by a criminal court and a criminal trial is underway. But immediately after the transfer of the undersigned from the department, the guilty employee was illegally reinstated in service without an order of the competent appellate authority absolving him of the guilt proved in departmental inquiry. The competent appellate authority in the case was the State Government. The accused employee is due for retirement sometime in the year 2013. He is likely to be superannuated with full pension and other retirement benefits, though he stood removed from service by the competent punishing authority, an order which was not set aside by the competent appellate authority in appeal. The undersigned is at least not aware of such blatant illegality and impropriety committed in service jurisprudence in any part of the country. The undersigned was transferred out from the post of Director General, Social Justice &

Page 41 of 105

Empowerment to Managing Director of HARTRON, a State Government undertaking for the promotion of E-governance and Information Technology Industry in the State.

5.2

Managing Director, HARTRON The tenure as Managing Director of Hartron was very short, just 50

days. The reason for the transfer from HARTRON was the discovery of corrupt practices within the organization. Some favored small-time Companies were empanelled using arbitrary criteria. IT related works were being awarded at very high rates to the select list of empanelled companies. There was a nexus between the management and the empanelled IT companies. IT related works of software development, website development and manpower training of petty nature were awarded at inflated costs of between ` 25-50 lakhs to the empanelled companies without competitive tenders, whereas the works were of rudimentary nature equivalent to few man-days of software skills and could have been done either inhouse or through NIC. Some examples are quoted. There was a loss of ` 70 lakhs to the Corporation in the purchase of electricity billing software without client requirement. There was a loss of ` 21.25 lakhs in another case of SETC Project, where the work was awarded at high costs without commensurate output. The digitization software got done through the empanelled firm was freely available as a tool in Google DOCS and was easily customizable using few man-days. In yet another case, two hundred licenses of SAP Software were purchased without requirement from an empanelled Company at a cost of ` 17.4 lakhs. The licenses are lying with the Corporation without utility. On a reference with documentary evidence, the State Government was left with no alternative but to de-list the dubiously empanelled companies. One such empanelled Company was debarred by the undersigned for ten years from dealing with HARTRON in any manner. Some

Page 42 of 105

employees found guilty were charge sheeted, but were later let off with minor penalties. The Principal Secretary of the IT Department did not appreciate the undersigned insisting on asking for self-appraisal reports and future road maps from the three persons engaged by him as IT Advisors in the Department at the time of consideration of extension of their existing contracts. The IT Advisors were paid from a Society For IT Initiative Fund For E-Governance, whose accounts are not subject to audit by CAG. The initial corpus of ` 10 crores of the Society at the time of its formation in the year 2000 was contributed by various State Public Sector Undertakings. Differences arose with the Principal Secretary of the IT Department due to his unreasonable denial and the insistence of the undersigned to ask for self-appraisal and future road-map from the three IT Advisors before granting them further extension. In fact, the IT Advisors engaged in the Society were not IT experts, but were earlier part of the Project Management Unit of the MCA-21 project of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. The Principal Secretary in his earlier capacity as Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs was associated with the MCA-21 project. The three persons were engaged as IT Advisors without any selection process and paid out of Society funds. The State of Haryana used to be a leading E-governance State in the country along with Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat during the years, 2000 to 2008. The State has slipped several notches in E-governance in the last 4 years despite lot of funding and capacity augmentation by the Ministry of IT. The IT Advisors were focused on managing big tenders and not on actual outcomes or deliverables in E-Governance in the Departments. Building IT infrastructure like State Data Center or State Wide Area Network without being put to actual use may be good for IT industry and IT consultants, but does not bring in E-governance automatically. Serious questions of probity regarding the functioning of a

Page 43 of 105

particular IT Advisor arose when a private company was sought to be smartly bailed out in a UIDAI project without forfeiture of the ` 12.5 crores security deposit. Due to the principled opposition, I was given a humiliating marching order within 50 days of my posting. The Committee ought to have called the Principal Secretary of the IT Department and the undersigned and arrived at conclusive findings on the issues raised after due inquiry, which unfortunately was not done.

5.3

Director General, Land Records and Consolidation of Holdings From HARTRON, the undersigned was shifted to the post of Director

General, Land Records and Consolidation of Land Holdings, where the stay was for 80 days. Transfer out of the Department was part of the mandate of the Committee to inquire and report upon. A representation was made by the undersigned on the 1st of August, 2012 against the posting to a lower rank post of Special Collector (HQ) and Special Land Acquisition Officer. The contention of the undersigned was accepted by the Honble High Court in CWP No. 5460 of 2009 in a pending surplus land case. The Honble High Court directed the State Government in its hearing on the 1st of October, 2012 to post a suitable rank officer against the post of Special Collector (HQ). A Press release issued by the State Public Relations Department on the 16th of October, 2012, explained the transfer was in compliance with the direction dated October 1st, 2012 of the Honble High Court in CWP No. 5460 of 2009. An order of the Honble High Court in the above CWP on 26th November, 2012 rendered incorrect the explanation of the Government for the premature transfer of the undersigned. The relevant portion of the order of the Honble High Court passed on 26.11.2012 is reproduced below,-

Page 44 of 105

In this case, Special Collector had appeared before the Court on 1/10/2012 and had expressed his difficulty in not deciding the matter, despite directions issued by this Court. Finding the said explanation to be reasonable, the respondent-Government was required to take a decision to give charge of this appointment to an officer, who could competently exercise such powers of Special Collector. Subsequently, it revealed that on the basis of this order, the Special Collector has challenged some action of the Government in directing his transfer from the appointment held by him. That would be an issue between the officer and the Government

After the exposure of scams involving the misappropriation of Panchayat lands and the encouragement of crony capitalism in the land-licensing deals during the tenure as Director General, Land Records, Director General, Consolidation of Holdings and Inspector General of Registration, Haryana, the undersigned was subjected to untold mental torture to psychologically break him down as punishment for the exposures. The telephones are reportedly tapped and even the members of family are subjected to surveillance by the State CID sleuths. There are serious concerns of security. The ploy of mental torture is being given effect to through bad elements against whom the undersigned had taken action as part of his official duties in the past. One such case as learnt from Press reports was of an ex-employee of the Haryana Housing Board, who was terminated in August, 2006 on grounds of medical unfitness as per the opinion of the Medical Board. His son had then requested for a job on the ground that his father was physically and mentally incapable to perform duty. In another matter, action was taken against an ex-employee of the Haryana State Warehousing Corporation, for stealing FCI rice stored in godown under his charge. Another case involved an

Page 45 of 105

employee of the Housing Board who was dismissed from service for beating up his superior officer. The involvement of the top elements in the State Government is exfacie apparent when a Press Conference was arranged on 27th October, 2012 at Haryana Tourisms Red Bishop, Panchkula, for the son of an ex-employee of the Housing Board who was terminated from service on medical grounds, with the active involvement of the State CID sleuths and the State Public Relations Department. It is reliably learnt that this was planned at the top police and political levels through the medium of a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, who claimed to be the brother of the wife of the missing ex-employee. The son of the missing ex-employee is promised a Government job for falsely framing the undersigned six years after his father was reportedly missing. Only a criminal investigation by an independent agency like the C.B.I. into the criminal conspiracy hatched by a few top police officers and the politicalbureaucratic establishment with the accused in FIR No. 406 dated 1.11.2012 registered at P.S. Sector 5, Panchkula; the son and wife of the missing ex-employee of Housing Board and a retired employee of Haryana State Warehousing Corporation would expose their evil games. Their telephone call records would establish the inter-linkages and expose the criminal conspiracy to fix the undersigned in false criminal cases with the nefarious motive to harm the undersigned as punishment for exposing the various scams hitting their interests. The de-notification of village Rozka-Gujar (Tehsil Sohna) and village Kot (Tehsil Ballabhgarh) from the consolidation proceedings adversely affected the black money investments of several VVIPs. Sincere efforts must be made to trace the missing ex-employee of the Housing Board. It is apprehended that a conspiracy may be hatched to cause harm to the missing ex-employee in order to implicate the undersigned deeper. A copy of the letter No. PA/MD HSDC/2012/179 dated 6.12.2012 addressed to the Chief Secretary in the matter is at Annexure C-19.

Page 46 of 105

5.4

Managing Director, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. The undersigned was next transferred as Managing Director of

Haryana Seeds Development Corporation. This was a small State Public Sector Undertaking, not befitting the undersigneds 22 years of seniority in the Indian Administrative Service. The post was held by an officer 12 years junior as additional charge to his main posting in the Revenue Department. The undersigned was not allowed to stay even in this Corporation for long. After a brief tenure of just 165 days in the State Seeds Corporation, the undersigned was again transferred for a fourth time in less than one year and now archived in the Archives Department without work. The motive for the transfer out of the State Seeds Corporation was not benign and was explained in detail to the Chief Secretary in a letter bearing No. 11 /PS-Archives/2013 dated 25th April, 2013, a copy of which is at Annexure C-20. The undersigned had tried his best to usher in true reforms in an important sector concerning the farming community of the State, but unfortunately vested interests did not allow this to happen. By ensuring the exit of the undersigned from the Corporation, the vested interests ensured that the status quo was not disturbed at any cost and corruption in the utilization of Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana grants continued as before in complete harmony with the State Agriculture Department.

Whereas statutory Rules and Regulations prescribe a minimum tenure of two years, the undersigned was transferred four times in a period of less than one year in total disregard to the statutes. Such frequent transfers without justifiable reasons are humiliating and demoralizing to the morale of upright and conscientious public servants of the country.

Page 47 of 105

Chapter 6 Sky Light Hospitalitys Land-Licensing Transaction in village Shikohpur, Sector 83, Gurgaon.

Acronym used:

DTCP: Department of Town & Country Planning, Haryana.

The Committee predictably gave a clean chit to the grant, renewal and subsequent permission to the transfer of commercial colony license to M/s Sky Light Hospitality, a Company owned by Mr. Robert Vadra. As per information publicly available and collected from the MCA-21 portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited is a Company incorporated on the 1st of November, 2007. Up to the 30th of September, 2011, its total paid-up share capital was just ` 5 lakhs. Of this, 99.8% was owned by Mr. Robert Vadra and the balance 0.2% by Mrs. Maureen Vadra. M/s Onkareshwar Properties Private Limited is another Company which was incorporated on the 28th of September, 2004. Its paid-up capital as on 30th September, 2011 was just ` 25 lakhs. Of this, 98% was owned by one Mr. Satyanand Yajee and the balance 2% by Mrs. Godavari Yajee. The complete transaction involving the land measuring 5 Bighas 13 Biswas (equivalent to 3.53 acres) in Khasra number 730 of village Shikohpur, Sector 83, District Gurgaon, comprised of the following seven components,(i) (ii) Registration of purchase deed of land for ` 7.5 crores on 12.02.2008; Issue of a Letter Of Intent for 2.701 acres out of total area of 3.53 acres for grant of commercial license on this land on 28.03.2008 by the

Page 48 of 105

Department of Town & Country Planning, hereinafter referred to as DTCP, for short; (iii) Collaboration Agreement dated 5th August, 2008 entered with M/s DLF Retail Developers Limited for development of commercial colony on the site; (iv) Grant of colony license No. 203 of 2008 for commercial use by DTCP on 15.12.2008 for a period of two years up to 14.12.2010; (v) Renewal of commercial colony license by DTCP for another two years on 18.01.2011 up to 14.12.2012; (vi) Permission to transfer commercial colony license No. 203 of 2008 by DTCP in favour of M/s DLF Universal Ltd. on 03.04.2012; and (vii) Registration of sale deed of land along with commercial colony license for ` 58 crores on 18.09.2012. Each of the above seven components will be discussed below to analyse their appropriateness and the clean chit given by the Committee. The DTCP was requested to provide the following information which would have aided the undersigned in the drafting of a comprehensive response in the matter, but unfortunately no information or record was provided, All relevant files related to the grant, renewal and transfer of licenses to the Companies of Mr. Robert Vadra, including M/s Skylight Hospitality; The beneficial ownership of M/s Onkareshwar Properties, a licensee of the Town & Country Planning Department and all the relevant files related to grant, renewal and transfer of licenses to this firm; and All cases concerning transfer of licenses in the past 10 years.

Page 49 of 105

6.1

Registration of deed on 12.02.2008 for purchase of land for ` 7.5 crores It is claimed in the registered deed no. 4928 dated 12.02.2008

registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sohna, that 5 Bighas 12 Biswas (= 3.531 acres) of agriculture land in village Shikohpur, district Gurgaon, was sold by M/s Onkareshwar Properties Private Limited (vendor-company) to M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited (vendee-company) and that the full consideration amount of ` 7.5 crores was realized by the vendor-company from the vendeecompany before the date of registry, i.e., on 12.02.2008, through a cheque bearing no. 607251 dated 9.2.2008 of Corporation Bank, New Delhi. It is further stated in the deed that all expenses related to the purchase of land, including the stamp duty of ` 45 lakhs, was borne by the vendee-company. The above registered deed No. 4928 dated 12.02.2008 is ex-facie a false document containing wrong statement made before the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sohna. A perusal of documents publicly available including the financial statements and the auditors report submitted to the Registrar of Companies by M/s Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. show that the claim made in the registered deed No. 4928 dated 12.02.2008 regarding a payment of ` 7.5 crores being made by the vendeecompany by cheque no. 607251 dated 9.2.2008 of Corporation Bank, New Delhi and the cost of registration including stamp duty of ` 45 lakhs being borne by the vendee-company is false. Various evidences including then newspaper reports and the statement of the Chairman cum- Managing Director of Corporation Bank appearing in the media at the time the controversy arose regarding the Bank releasing overdraft of ` 7.94 crores to M/s Sky Light Hospitality, indicate that the cheque no. 607251 of Corporation Bank did not belong to M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited. Most likely, a fictitious cheque number was shown by the vendeecompany in the deed registered with full consent and knowledge of the vendor-

Page 50 of 105

company, so that the deed for purchase/sale of immovable property can be executed in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sohna, giving legal title of the land to M/s Sky Light Hospitality by virtue of a sham transaction. This can be independently verified from the bankers of the vendor-company and the vendeecompany whether cheque no. 607251 was issued to M/s Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. by the bank or whether M/s Onkareshwar Properties presented the cheque no. 607251 to its bank for encashment. As on 31.03.2008, the total paid-up share capital of the vendee-company was just ` 1 lakh. The vendee-company had NIL income and its expenses were ` 43,380/- up to 31.03.2008. The vendee-company did not own the resources to pay ` 7.5 crores to the vendor-company or to meet the stamp duty costs of ` 45 lakhs. The stamp duty cost of ` 45 lakhs was borne by the vendor-company and not by the vendee-company as wrongly stated in the registered deed.

If there was no payment as alleged in the registered deed, can it be said that the registered deed No. 4928 dated 12.02.2008 conferred ownership title over the said land upon M/s Sky Light Hospitality by virtue of the sham sale? Section 54 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines sale as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and partpromised. There was no promise to pay in the future in the registered deed. No price was paid as claimed in the registered deed No. 4928 dated 12.2.2008. The sale registered in the said deed cannot, therefore, be called a sale in the true sense of the term, legal or moral, and it cannot be said that M/s Sky Light Hospitality became owner of the land in question by virtue of the sale registered in deed No. 4928 dated 12.2.2008.

Page 51 of 105

6.1.1 Offences under the Registration Act and the Indian Penal Code Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 is reproduced as under,82. Penalty for making false statements, delivering false copies or translations, false personation, and abetment Whoever(a) intentionally makes any false statement, whether on oath or not, and whether it has been recorded or not, before any officer acting in execution of this Act, in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or (b) intentionally delivers to a registering officer, in any proceeding under section 19 or section 21, a false copy or translation of a document, or a false copy of a map or plan; or (c) falsely personates another, and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or statement, or causes any summons or commission to be issued, or does any other act in any proceeding or enquiry under this Act; or (d) abets anything made punishable by this Act; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

In making false statement as described above before the Joint SubRegistrar, Sohna, the Directors of both vendor-company and vendee-company of the deed registered vide No. 4928 dated 12.02.2008 at Sohna have willfully committed an offence punishable under section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, prescribing imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. The statements in the registered deed that a payment of ` 7.5 crores was realized by the vendor and paid by the vendee vide Corporation Banks cheque no. 607251 dated 9.2.2008 and that the cost of stamp duty amounting to ` 45 lakhs was paid by the vendee were patently false and constituted an offence under sections 417, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 also.

Page 52 of 105

6.1.2 Offences under the Companies Act Section 217 (5) and 628 of The Companies Act, 1956 is reproduced as under, 217. BOARD'S REPORT (5) If any person, being a director of a company, fails to take all reasonable steps to comply with the provisions of subsections (1) to (3), or being the chairman, signs the Board's report otherwise than in conformity with the provisions of sub-section (4), he shall, in respect of each offence, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both : 628. PENALTY FOR FALSE STATEMENTS If in any return, report, certificate, balance sheet, prospectus, statement or other document required by or for the purposes of any of the provisions of this Act, any person makes a statement (a) which is false in any material particular, knowing it to be false ; or (b) which omits any material fact, knowing it to be material; he shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine. In the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2008 of M/s Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. filed with the Registrar of Companies, the bank balance is wrongly shown

Page 53 of 105

as book overdraft of ` 7,94,00,000/-. At serial no. 6 of the Notes To Accounts, the following is indicated, The OD shown in Corporation Bank account is book OD due to cheque issued before balance sheet date but not presented up to balance date, which is cleared after balance sheet date. This was a false statement. The actual and correct position as on 31.3.2008 was that M/s Onkareshwar Properties Private Limited was the creditor of M/s Sky Light Hospitality to the extent of ` 7.95 crores and the actual bank balance was ` 1 lakh. The cheque no. 607251 dated 9.2.2008 shown to be paid to M/s Onkareshwar Properties in the registered deed no. 4928 dated 12.2.2008 for ` 7.5 crores does not belong to M/s Sky Light Hospitality. The payment of ` 7.95 crores was made to M/s Onkareshwar Properties after money was received from M/s DLF Universal Ltd. (then known as, M/s Retail Developers Ltd.) in the shape of advance or interest free loan. In view of the compliance requirements under the SEBI Act of a listed Public Limited Company and the accountability of the management to an independent Board of Directors and through the Board of Directors to the body of shareholders, M/s DLF Retail Developers Ltd. could not have paid advance or interest-free loan to M/s Sky Light Hospitality without fulfilling certain minimum legal formalities like (i). Legal title to the land; a registered deed No. 4928 was executed on 12.02.2008 on the basis of a sham sale; and (ii). Letter of Intent for grant of commercial colony license from the DTCP for which the minimum requirement was land title.

Page 54 of 105

With the two documents, i.e., land title and Letter of Intent for grant of colony license, in its possession, it became possible for M/s Sky Light Hospitality to execute a Collaboration Agreement with M/s DLF Retail Developers, which was done on the 5th of August, 2008 and to receive huge amounts as advance or interest-free loan from M/s DLF. As per the Balance Sheet of M/s Sky Light Hospitality as on 31.03.2009, the Company had received advances of ` 25 crores from the DLF Group towards the Joint Venture and land accounts during the year 2008-09. This funding from the DLF Group was used to clear the dues of ` 7.95 crores, i.e., ` 7.5 crores towards cost of land plus ` 45 lakhs towards stamp duty, to M/s Onkareshwar Properties, the vendor-company in registered deed No. 4928 dated 12.02.2008. The cheque number and date of actual payment can be obtained from the Corporation Bank account of M/s Sky Light Hospitality. The motive of the sham transactions was to corner the huge market premium accruing on account of the commercial colony license. The modus operandi suggests that the payment to M/s Onkareshwar Properties for land and stamp duty costs amounting to ` 7.95 cores would have been made immediately after the 5th August, 2008, the date the Collaboration Agreement was executed by M/s Sky Light Hospitality with M/s DLF Retail Developers, so as to avoid any legal complications which the management of M/s DLF Retail Developers could have landed into with its shareholders and independent members on its Board of Directors. By knowingly signing and filing a false balance sheet as at 31.03.2008, the Directors of M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited committed offences under sections 217(5) and 628 of The Companies Act, 1956.

Page 55 of 105

6.2 Issue of Letter Of Intent on 28.03.2008 by the DTCP for grant of commercial colony license for 2.701 acres out of total area of 3.53 acres A Letter of Intent was issued on the 28th of March, 2008 in favour of M/s Sky Light Hospitality by the DTCP within a mere 18 days of the application, conveying the intent of the Department to grant commercial colony license to the Company under section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Rules of 1976 framed thereunder. Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1975 mandates that an enquiry will be conducted by the Director of Town & Country Planning, particularly with respect to the title to the land and the capacity of the owner-applicant to develop a colony. The relevant portion of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 3 of The Haryana Development and Regulation Of Urban Areas Act, 1975 [HARYANA ACT NO. 8 OF 1975] is reproduced below, 3. Application for licence (1) Any owner desiring to convert his land into a colony shall, unless exempted under section 9, make an application to the Director, for the grant of license to develop a colony in the prescribed form and pay for it such fee and conversion charges as may be prescribed. ... (2) On receipt of the application under sub-section (1), the Director shall, among other things, enquire into the following matters, namely: a) title to the land; b) extent and situation of the land; c) capacity to develop a colony; d) the layout of a colony; e) plan regarding the development works to be executed in a colony; and f) conformity of the development schemes of the colony land to those of the neighbouring areas.

Page 56 of 105

Under Rule 3 of The Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, the applicant shall furnish, among other things, particulars of experience as colonizer and particulars about financial position as to determine the capacity to develop the colony. The relevant clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 1976 is hereby reproduced as under,3. Application for licence [sections 3 and 24] (1) Any owner of land desirous of setting up a colony shall make an application in writing to the Director in form LC-I and shall furnish therewith a) b) income tax clearance certificate; c) particulars of experience as colonizer showing number and details of colonies already established or being established; d) particulars about financial position so as to determine the capacity to develop the colony for which he is applying;

Undue haste was shown in conveying the Letter of Intent by the DTCP to grant license to the applicant Company, in view of the following disturbing facts 1) Title to the land: As explained in the earlier section 6.1, M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited made no payment as alleged in the registered deed No. 4928 dated 12.02.2008 by virtue of which the Company claimed legal title over the said land. The sale was a completely sham transaction. The registered deed No. 4928 dated 12.02.2008 did not constitute Sale within the meaning of section 54 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. No price was promised in the future and no price was paid as claimed in the registered deed No. 4928 dated 12.2.2008. The transaction registered in the said deed

Page 57 of 105

was therefore not a sale within the meaning of section 54 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. M/s Sky Light Hospitality did not become owner of the land in question by virtue of a genuine or true sale transaction. The DTCP miserably failed to check the authenticity of the sale transaction registered as deed no. 4928 dated 12.02.2008 in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sohna, before the issue of Letter of Intent for commercial colony license on 28.03.2008 to M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited.

2) Capacity of M/s Sky Light Hospitality to develop Commercial Colony: On the date of grant of Letter of Intent, the applicant-Company was a newly registered Company with a paid-up capital of just one lakh rupees and consisted of only two shareholders, Robert Vadra with 99% share and his mother, Maureen Vadra with the balance 1% share. There was zero income upto 31.03.2008. The expenditure incurred up to 31.03.2008 was ` 43,380/and this too was met using borrowed money. The capacity of the applicantCompany was nothing else other than Mr. Robert Vadra. The man became the measure of everything and the entire statutory apparatus a castle of sand. 3) Income-tax clearance certificate: The income tax clearance certificate required under Rule 3 (1) (b) was done away with.

The title document registered on 12.02.2008 without making payment to the vendor of the deed and the Letter of Intent issued on 28.03.2008 enabled M/s Sky Light Hospitality to receive ` 5 crores from M/s DLF Retail Developers Ltd. just 65 days after the issue of Letter of Intent on the 3rd of June,

Page 58 of 105

2008. This amount is variously labeled: interest-free refundable security in clause 2(e) of the Collaboration Agreement executed between the two parties on 5th August, 2008; Advance on Joint Venture Account in the Balance Sheet of M/s Sky Light Hospitality as at 31.03.2009; and Advance on account of sale of Manesar Land in the Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2010.

6.3 Collaboration Agreement dated 5th August, 2008 with M/s DLF Retail Developers Limited for development of commercial colony at the site. A Collaboration Agreement was executed on the 5th of August, 2008 between M/s Sky Light Hospitality (called Land Owner) and M/s DLF Retail Developers Ltd. (called Developer) on a non-judicial stamp paper worth ` 100/only. As per the above Collaboration Agreement, the Land Owners contribution was the Land Title and a Letter Of Intent from the DTCP for grant of commercial colony license on 2.701 acres; the rest of the responsibility was of the Developer, including obtaining commercial colony license from DTCP, development of commercial project/buildings with FAR of 175 and maintenance of the assets created. The gross commercial area developed was to be shared equally between the Land Owner and the Developer. The Collaboration Agreement between the two parties shows that there was never any intent on the part of M/s Sky Light Hospitality to develop colony on the said land. The Land Title and Letter Of Intent for grant of commercial colony license were sham transactions routed through M/s Sky Light Hospitality so that part of the unofficial premium on account of commercial colony license is remitted in white by the Developer, M/s DLF Retail Developers, to M/s Sky Light Hospitality acting as a middleman to the deal of obtaining colony licence from the DTCP.

Page 59 of 105

The total gross commercial area to be developed on 2.701 acres area of commercial colony at FAR of 175 works out to 2,05,820 square feet. The responsibility of the Land Owner was limited to obtaining legal title of the land and a Letter of Intent from the DTCP. All other activities including obtaining license, sanction of building plans, construction activities, insurance, occupancy certificates, maintenance of assets created etc. was the sole responsibility of the Developer at his cost. The collaboration agreement was not registered and was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper worth ` 100/-. The clause nos. 2(e), 2(i), 3(b), 7(b), 7(c), 8, 10(e), 10(h), 12(c), 12(f), 13(d) of the Collaboration agreement dated 5th August, 2008 between M/s Sky Light Hospitality and M/s DLF Retail Developers Ltd. are relevant and are hereby reproduced below to understand the nature of the Collaboration Agreement as regards its liability for registration under the Registration Act, 1908. Specific Clauses of the Collaboration Agreement dated 5.8.2008 2(e). The Developer has agreed to pay to the Land Owner Interest Free Refundable Security amounting to ` 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only). The Developer has already paid to the Land Owner a sum of ` 5,00, 00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only) vide cheque no. 441242 dated 03.06.08 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited. New Delhi Branch and the receipt of which the Land Owner hereby acknowledges. The said interest free refundable security of ` 5,00,00,000/- shall be refunded back by the Land Owner to the developer at the time of handing over possession of the built up area to the Land owner after adjustment referred in the Agreement. 2(i). The proposed commercial project/ buildings shall be named by the Developer and would be sold under the same name. The Developer shall have the sole discretion of placing signage in the Buildings and the complex. 3(a). The Land owner has handed over the possession of the said Land and the developer has taken possession of the said Land.

Page 60 of 105

7(b). In event of any compulsory acquisition, both the parties to this Agreement shall contest the same and in the event of any compensation being granted, all the amount received shall be apportioned equally between the parties. The Land Owner shall within 7 days of the receipt of the said compensation pay to the Developer its dues failing which the developer shall be entitled to charge a penal interest @ 12% p.a. for the period of delay. 7(c). The Land Owner shall be bound to pay all the Land Ownership related charges, taxes and all other dues such as electricity and water charges upto the date of Agreement, after which date, the Developer shall be liable to pay all such charges. The Land Owner shall be liable to pay said charges which may surface at any future date for the period prior to execution of this Agreement. 8. Right to sell a) That both the parties to this agreement shall have the right to sell areas under their respective allotments immediately after the sanction of building plans. b) Both the parties for the sale of their respective areas shall execute tripartite agreements wherein the Land Owner shall sign as Land Owner, Developer as Confirming Land Owner and the intended buyer as buyer. c) Both the parties, for their respective rights in each others allotted super areas, shall issue a registered Power of attorney in favor of each other, authorizing each other to complete the execution and registration of sale related documents on each others behalf for the sale of their respective areas under allotment. d) Both the parties shall collect the sale proceeds from the sale of their respective areas in their own names. e) The Developer shall within 7 days of the sanction of the building plans shall execute Builder Buyer Agreements in favor of the Land Owner and/or its nominees for the allocation of Land Owner share in total super areas and thereafter the relationship between both the parties with respect to said share of Land Owner shall be governed by the said Builder buyer Agreement. f) It has been agreed that within 90 days of the sanction of the Building Plans or the commencement of marketing of the constructed areas,

Page 61 of 105

whichever is earlier, the parties shall resolve the issues of demarcation as covenanted in clause 2 (c ) above. g) The Land Owner shall not create any parallel documentation for sale of super areas under their share, be in conflict or contrary to marketing and sales program of the Developer as agreed in clause a above. 10(e). Wherever, the Land Owner has entered into an agreement to sell/lease its share, the Land Owner shall ensure that such charges are paid by the said subsequent buyers/lessee(s) as the case may be. 10(h). The Land Owner further undertakes that during the subsistence of this Agreement, they shall not sell, partition, gift, mortgage, pledge or encumber or in any manner deal with the said land with any other party or declare themselves bankrupt i.e., it shall not by any means through any registered and/or unregistered document create any third party rights on the said land in any manner whatsoever, which are inconsistent with the terms of the Agreement. 12(c). After the execution of this Agreement the Land Owner will not do anything on the land, which will materially affect the title and /or other rights appurtenant thereto including the right of easement. 12(f). This Agreement shall not be construed or understood to be a partnership agency, contracting/sub-contracting or any other legal relationship between the Land Owner and Developer save and except what is specifically provided under the terms of this Agreement. 13(d). The Land Owner have represented and assured that all the charges relating to the ownership such as land revenues, taxes etc. have been paid till the date of this agreement and handing over of the possession of the Land to the Developers and thereafter Developers shall bear the same. Arrears, if any demanded by the Authorities. Covering the period prior to the handing over of the possession of the Land to the Developers shall also be borne and paid by the Land Owner.

Clause (b) & (c) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (Act No. 16 of 1908) is relevant and is reproduced below -

Page 62 of 105

17. Documents of which registration is compulsory (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 or this Act came or comes into force, namely:(a) ; (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees, and upwards, to or in immovable property; (c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and . Clause (b) of Section 17(1) of Registration Act: The Collaboration Agreement if read as a whole is a nontestamentary instrument which purported to create, declare, assign in future all rights and title for 50% of the developed gross commercial space on the land upon M/s DLF Retail Developers Ltd. and the balance 50% upon M/s Sky Light Hospitality. Each party to the agreement was to receive over one lakh square feet of gross commercial developed space in Sector 83, Gurgaon under this Agreement. The Agreement also operated to limit or extinguish the vested right or interest on the land of M/s Sky Light Hospitality, for which the possession of the land was already handed over to M/s DLF Retail Developers. The Collaboration Agreement

Page 63 of 105

dated 5.8.2008 was, therefore, a compulsorily registerable document within the meaning and scope of clause (b) of section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908. Clause (c) of Section 17(1) of Registration Act: In addition, the Collaboration Agreement was a non-testamentary instrument acknowledging the receipt by the Land Owner and payment by the Developer of an interest-free refundable security amounting to ` 5 crores vide cheque no. 441242 dated 3.6.2008 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., New Delhi, on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of right, title or interest as described above and was thus squarely covered within the meaning and scope of clause (c) of section 17 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908. Section 17(1A) of Registration Act: Moreover, according to the amendment effected vide Act No. 48 of 2001, Section 17(1A) was introduced in the Registration Act with effect from 24.07.2001. The amendment is applicable throughout the country. As per the provisions of Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, if an agreement is with transfer of possession, then that document is compulsorily registerable. Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act is reproduced below, 17(1A). The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A."

Page 64 of 105

The Collaboration Agreement dated 5.8.2008 between M/s Sky Light Hospitality and M/s DLF Retail Developers was, therefore, a compulsorily registerable document under the clauses (b) & (c) of section 17(1) and section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. Clause 3(a) of the Collaboration Agreement expressly records that the landowner has handed over possession of the said land and the developer has taken possession of the said land. The effect of nonregistration of documents required to be registered is laid down in section 49 of the Registration Act and is reproduced below, 49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered No document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered shall(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered: The State of Haryana lost crores of revenues in the form of stamp duty due to non-registration of the Collaboration Agreement dated 5.8.2008, which was compulsorily registerable under sections 17(1)(b), 17(1)(c) and 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. By entertaining applications from M/s DLF Retail Developers Ltd. on behalf of M/s Sky Light Hospitality on the basis of the Collaboration Agreement dated 5th August, 2008, for the grant, renewal and permission to transfer the license on the said land, the DTCP aided and abetted the loss of crores of revenues to the State exchequer. Entertaining the applications from M/s DLF Retail Developers for grant, renewal and transfer of the license was a gross illegality as per the provisions of section 49 of the Registration Act.

Page 65 of 105

6.4 Grant of Colony License No. 203 of 2008 for commercial use by DTCP on 15.12.2008 for two years up to 14.12.2010.

One Devinder Singh is the authorized signatory of M/s DLF Retail Developers Ltd in their applications dated 21.08.2008 and 24.09.2008 to the DTCP for commercial license for 2.701 acres. The same Devinder Singh is also the special power of attorney holder of M/s Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. in the same communications. The paradox that this embodies is that M/s DLF Retail Developers and M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited are the two parties between whom the Collaboration Agreement dated 5.8.2008 are executed. Both the parties are thus represented by one and the same person. There is a fresh application dated 18 Nov., 2008 in Form LC-I to the DTCP for grant of commercial colony license on the said land in the name of M/s Sky Light Hospitality Limited. The application is signed by Mr. Devinder Singh, as special power of attorney holder of M/s Sky Light Hospitality. The Collaboration Agreement dated 5.8.2008 signed with M/s DLF Retail Developers is indicated in the application form LC-I to justify the capacity of the applicant, M/s Sky Light Hospitality to develop a colony. The Collaboration Agreement dated 5.8.2008 which was compulsorily registerable under the clauses (b) & (c) of section 17(1) and section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, 1908, was entertained illegally without registration by the DTCP to establish the capacity of the applicant as required under clause (c) of section 3 (2) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. Besides, the applicantcompany had transferred possession of the said land to a third party. This itself was sufficient to withdraw the earlier Letter of Intent dated 28.03.2008. Instead, the License No. 203 of 2008 for developing commercial colony was granted to M/s Sky Light Hospitality on 15.12.2008 valid up to 14.12.2010, even though possession

Page 66 of 105

of land was transferred to M/s DLF Retail Developers and the provisions of section 53A of The Transfer of Property Act regarding possessory rights in favour of the transferee-company and against the transferor-company were attracted. This proves that all transactions entered into by M/s Sky Light Hospitality were sham. It was known all along to the DTCP that the actual developer of the colony would be M/s DLF Retail Developers (later renamed as M/s DLF Universal) and the routing of the transaction through M/s Sky Light Hospitality was a subterfuge to remit part premium, in white, accruing on account of the State largesse in granting commercial colony license, into the accounts of M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited.

6.5 Renewal of commercial colony license by DTCP for another two years on 18.01.2011 up to 14.12.2012. The renewal of colony license is governed by Rules 13 & 14 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, framed under section 3(4) of the Act, 1975, and is reproduced below,13. Application for renewal of license [Section 3(4)] In case a colonizer fails to complete the development works within the period specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 12 for the reasons beyond his control, he may apply to the Director for the renewal of licence in form LC-VI at least thirty days before the expiry of the licence and the said application shall be accompanied by :(i) (ii) (iii) income tax clearance certificate; an explanatory note indicating the details of development works which have been completed or are in progress or are yet to be undertaken; reasons for non-completion of development works as required in terms of the licence granted to him; and the license.

(iv) (v)

Page 67 of 105

14. Renewal of licence [Section 3(4)] (1) On receipt of an application under rule 13, the Director shall if satisfied after making such enquiries as he may consider necessary, that the delay in execution of development works was for reasons beyond the control of the colonizer, renew the licence for a period of one year.

It is strange that the application for renewal was not made by the licensee, i.e., M/s Sky Light Hospitality Limited. The first application was made on 15.11.2010 by Lok Pal Singh as authorised signatory of M/s DLF Retail Developers Ltd. Another application dated 30.11.2010 was made by Deepak Bhandari as authorized signatory of M/s DLF Universal Ltd. It is clearly stated in the application that the commercial project is in the planning stage and is yet to be launched. No development work was undertaken at the site. The specious reason given for not undertaking any development work at the site was that the building plans are awaiting approval. The reason given by M/s DLF Universal Ltd. was considered satisfactory by the DTCP and the license was renewed on 18th January, 2011 for a further period of two years up to 14.12.2012 in favour of M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited, which was not even an applicant before the DTCP. The DTCP also ignored the fact that M/s Sky Light Hospitality entered into an agreement to sell the land and had received ` 50 crores as advance before 7.10.2009 on account of sale of the Manesar land and this was duly recorded in its audited books of accounts for the Financial Year 2009-10, which were submitted to the Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act. In this regard, Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is relevant and is reproduced as under,

Page 68 of 105

53A. Part performance Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: PROVIDED that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.

In view of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, even though legal ownership of the land was with M/s Sky Light Hospitality, but the company as transferor was debarred from enforcing against the transferee any rights in respect of the property of which the transferee had taken possession and as per the Collaboration Agreement, the transferee had taken possession of the entire land before the date of execution of the agreement on 5.8.2008. If this was not an outright favor by the DTCP to M/s Sky Light Hospitality, then what else would have constituted favour?

Page 69 of 105

Incidentally, even as on the date of filing this response, there is not a single brick evincing development of commercial colony at the site. But in view of the known clout of M/s DLF Universal with the DTCP, the license would in all likelihood, if not in all certainty, be renewed on some specious plea or the other beyond 14.12.2012 in favor of the Company. 6.5.1 Offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 There was non-disclosure in the application for renewal or otherwise of the fact that M/s Sky Light Hospitality had entered into an agreement to sell the land to M/s DLF Universal and that an amount of ` 50 crores was received by M/s Sky Light Hospitality as part payment of the total sales consideration of ` 58 crores on or before 7.10.2009. The applicant-company by hiding this material fact in its application to the DTCP for renewal of the license had committed penal offences under sections 417, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6.6.

Approval for permission to transfer commercial colony license No. 203 of 2008 by DTCP in favour of M/s DLF Universal Ltd. on 03.04.2012. Section 24 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban

Areas Act, 1975, reproduced hereunder, defines the power to make rules. 24. Power to make rules.
(1) The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, subject

to the condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act and may give them prospective or retrospective effect.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing

power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely;-

Page 70 of 105

a) fee, form and manner of making an application for obtaining licence under sub-section (1) of section 3; b) form of licence agreement under sub section (3) of section 3; c) fee for grant or renewal of licence under sub section (4) of section 3; d) form of registers to be maintained under section 4; e) form of accounts to be maintained under sub-section (2) of section 5; f) manner of getting the accounts audited under sub-section (2) of section 6; g) manner in which preference is to be given to the plot-holders under sub-section (3) of section 8; h) form and manner of making application under sub-section (2) of section 9; i) any other matter in connection with preparation, submission and approval of plans.
(3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be, after it

is made, before the House of the State legislature, while it is in session.

Rule 17 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Rules, 1976, mandates that the colonizer shall not transfer the license granted to him to any other person without the approval of the Director. 17. Transfer of licence [Section 24] The colonizer shall not transfer the licence granted to him under the rule 12 to any other person without the prior approval of the Director.

There is no provision for transfer of colony license in the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. If there is no substantive provision in the parent Act to transfer license granted under section 3 (3) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act of 1975, the Rules

Page 71 of 105

framed thereunder cannot confer substantive powers permitting transfer of license upon the Director. Moreover, Rule 17 as quoted above cannot be construed to mean that the Director was conferred with the power to permit transfer of license granted to an existing licensee to another applicant. License is to the person and the grant of license depends upon several factors including the capacity of the applicant to develop a colony, which is assessed after inquiry by the Director under section 3 (2) of the Act. Transfer of a license granted under section 3 (3) is as misconceived and obnoxious as conceiving the transfer of a driving license, where the license is issued depending upon the persons capability to drive. The person holding a driving license cannot be permitted to transfer his license to another person even with the permission of the Licensing Authority. The suitability of each applicant is to be adjudged on own merits for grant of the license. The license granted cannot be traded. Every person has to apply for the license after completing necessary formalities and payment of the prescribed fee. By allowing the transfer of license issued in the name of M/s Sky Light Hospitality to M/s DLF Universal Ltd., the DTCP willy-nilly created a black market for trading in licenses, where cronies are issued licenses which are later sold or transferred with permission of the authority for fat consideration to the real developers. The obnoxious and illegal practice of trading in licenses result in huge losses to the State exchequer in terms of the license fees foregone. The transfer fee is fixed at 10% of the original license fee. On an application dated 18.01.2012 from M/s Sky Light Hospitality and another application dated 17.01.2012 from M/s DLF Universal Ltd., the series of sham transactions starting from deed No. 4928 registered on 12.02.2008 culminated with the DTCPs permission to transfer Commercial Colony License No. 203 of 20008 in favour of the actual developer, M/s DLF Universal Limited. The developer must have paid the premium for the commercial colon y license for 2.701 acres falling in village Shikohpur, Sector 83 Gurgaon, to several

Page 72 of 105

parties acting as middlemen to the deal, one of which was M/s Sky Light Hospitality, whose net profit from the single transaction was ` 42,61,55,500/- (= ` 58,00,00,000 ` 15,38,44,500) after accounting for all expenses including land cost, license fee, stamp duty etc.. As per the books of accounts of M/s Sky Light Hospitality, the total cost of Manesar land as on 31.03.2011 before sale to M/s DLF Universal Limited was ` 15,38,44,500/-.

6.7

Registration of sale deed of land along with Colony License for ` 58 crores on 18.09.2012. The series of sham transactions starting from the registration of a

deed on 12.02.2008 came to an end with the execution of a sale deed No. 1435 dated 18.09.2012 for ` 58 crores in favour of M/s DLF Universal Ltd. The land along with the commercial colony license was sold for ` 58 crores. Such transfers act as the perfect ruse or opportunity for middlemen to milk the market premium arising out of the grant of colony license, which should rightfully accrue either to the State Exchequer as revenues making available resources for development and welfare activities or the benefits of the license should be passed on to the end-user in terms of lower consumer price. A White Paper on all such transfers of licenses permitted in the past would expose the diabolical game of looting the public wealth.

The vendor and the vendee in the sale deed no. 1435 registered on 18.09.2012 do not disclose the existence of the Collaboration Agreement executed between them on 5.8.2008. The interest-free refundable security of ` 5 crores received by M/s Sky Light Hospitality from M/s DLF Retail Developers vide Cheque No. 441242 dated 3.6.2008 and duly recorded in clause 2 (e) of the Collaboration

Page 73 of 105

Agreement is later converted into part of the total sales consideration of ` 58 crores in the sale deed registered on 18.09.2012.

6.8

Beneficial owners of M/s Onkareshwar Properties What prompted M/s Onkareshwar Properties to oblige M/s Sky Light

Hospitality is a matter of a separate and independent inquiry. But as per information publicly available from the MCA-21 portal of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, M/s Onkareshwar Properties received largesse from the DTCP after executing the sale deed in favour of M/s Sky Light Hospitality on 12.02.2008 without receiving ` 7.5 crores towards the sales consideration and also meeting the costs of registration and stamp duty of ` 45 lakhs from its own account. M/s Onkareshwar Properties was granted two Group Housing licenses in village Sihi, Sector 82, Gurgaon, one for 6.262 acres on 11.4.2008 and the second for 15.068 acres on 1.6.2008. The Company also received a colony License for plotted development for 4.831 acres in village Shikhopur, Gurgaon, on 1.6.2008. Consequently, the fortunes of M/s Onkareshwar Properties went up from total net assets of ` 6,783/- as on 31.03.2005 to a bank balance of ` 70.84 crores, net investments of ` 85.27 crores and fixed assets of ` 9.76 crores within a period of 6 years as on 31.03.2011, with total paid-up share capital of just ` 25 lakhs.

6.9

Public Economics of Crony Capitalism As per its balance sheet as at 31.03.2011, the total cost to M/s Sky

Light Hospitality Private Limited for purchase of land including stamp duty and commercial license fees were ` 15,38,44,500/-. The net profit accruing to M/s Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited due to the grant of commercial license for 2.701 acres and the permission accorded by the DTCP to sell the license to M/s DLF Universal was ` 42,61,55,500/- (= ` 58,00,00,000 minus ` 15,38,44,500), after

Page 74 of 105

accounting for all expenses. This profit accrued to the Company without any value addition. Even if it is assumed that the premium for the commercial colony license was not shared in other forms with other middlemen, which is unlikely, the market premium on commercial license works out to a minimum of ` 15,77,76,934/- (= ` 42,61,55,500 / 2.701) or say ` 15.78 crores per acre.

The Department of Town & Country Planning issued various types of colony licenses for a total of 21,366 acres in the last 8 years from 2005 to 2012. The licenses granted from the year 2005 to 2012 constitute 71.5% of the total area licensed from 1981 to 2012. The rate of grant of colony license during the period from 2005 to 2012 was seven and a half times the corresponding rate during the period from 1981 to 2004. Assuming an average market premium of ` 15.78 crores per acre for colony license as in the present case, we may be looking at a land-licensing scam of nearly 3.5 lakh crores of rupees during the last eight years. Even if the market premium for colony license is assumed to be as low as one crore rupees per acre, the land-licensing scam in the last eight years is worth at least 20,000 crores of rupees. The worth of the land-licensing scam in the last eight years could be any figure in the range between 20,000 and 3,50,000 crores of rupees.

Whether the one or the other or anywhere in the range between the two, this is a humungous scam and loot of public wealth by the vested politicalbureaucratic-business nexus. The procedures governing grant of Colony Licenses under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and Change in Land Use (CLU) permissions under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 must be made completely transparent so that the profits or premium on account of grant of

Page 75 of 105

colony license or CLU permissions do not accrue to the middlemen. The person is licensed subject to fulfillment of laid down conditions including his capacity to develop the colony. Trading in licenses is a deliberate ploy to allow crony capitalists operating as middlemen to flourish and appropriate the market premium of the license. If the initial grant of licenses is by way of auctions, the most optimum price for the colony license would accrue to the State coffers. As part of State policy, some categories of end-consumers could be subsidized directly out of the auction proceeds of the licenses. If there is a true political will in bringing reforms in the Town & Country Planning Department, the details of a fair and transparent system like competitive bidding for grant of colony licenses or CLU permissions can be evolved without unfairly enriching the crony capitalists as in the case of discretionary allotments of natural resources like telecom spectrum, coal mines, natural gas etc. Thousands of crores of additional revenues would accrue to the State exchequer each year instead of to a select bunch of crony capitalists. Land is a natural resource and its market price is determined by its use controlled by the State Government. The grant of colony license or change in land use permission must be fair and transparent, so that it yields optimum benefits to the society and the premium is not cornered by a select bunch of crony capitalists acting in cahoots with the political-bureaucratic network. This response would be incomplete without quoting from the majority opinion of the Honble Supreme Court of India on State policy regarding allocation of natural resources in the Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution of India. The gist is captured in Para 149 of the opinion and a part of it is reproduced below,

149. ... However, when such a policy decision is not backed by a social or welfare purpose, and precious and scarce natural resources are alienated for commercial pursuits or profit maximizing private entrepreneurs,

Page 76 of 105

adoption of means other than those that are competitive and maximize revenue may be arbitrary and face the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, rather than prescribing or proscribing a method, we believe, a judicial scrutiny of methods of disposal of natural resources should depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, in consonance with the principles which we have culled out above. Failing which, the Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, shall term the executive action as arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and capricious due to its antinomy with Article 14 of the Constitution.

6.10 Mandatory Declaration of Non-Conflict of Interest by Public Servants Section 300 (1) of The Companies Act, 1956 prohibits interested directors in a Company from participating or voting in the Boards proceedings. Contravention attracts punishment with fine of up to fifty thousand rupees. The relevant sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 300 of the Companies Act, 1956 are reproduced below,-

300. INTERESTED DIRECTOR NOT TO PARTICIPATE OR VOTE IN BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS (1) No director of a company shall, as a director, take any part in the discussion of, or vote on, any contract or arrangement entered into, or to be entered into, by or on behalf of the company, if he is in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned or interested in the contract or arrangement ; nor shall his presence count for the purpose of forming a quorum at the time of any such discussion or vote ; and if he does vote, his vote shall be void.

Page 77 of 105

(4) Every director who knowingly contravenes the provisions of this section shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.

Unfortunately, there is no such analogous statutory provision for public servants. As described in Chapter 4 of this Report, public servants benefited from consolidation proceedings by investing in the lands under consolidation. The other modus operandi was to become co-sharers of common lands by buying a share of it cheaply from co-sharers not in possession of any part of the common land. The initial investment is multiplied several times after a partition of the common land through revenue officers under their direct control. From holding a share of the common land, the public servants responsible for implementation of the land laws take possession of valuable specific Khasra numbers after the partition of the common land, multiplying their initial investments by several times. There are several cases where public servants with direct or indirect selfinterest take active part in decision making under the Land Acquisition Act and preparation of Development Plans in controlled areas under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. This necessitates making the declaration of any direct or indirect conflict of selfinterest mandatory for all public servants and further making any false declaration by public servants a penal offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

6.11. Performance Audit by CAG

Corruption in Government is difficult to detect when there is a convergence of the trio: the politicians, the bureaucracy, and the business. In this complex scenario, the entire gamut of land scams occurring in Haryana cannot

Page 78 of 105

possibly be inquired into objectively by the Committee or any other executive agency under the control of the State Government. In order to get a true and complete picture, only a performance audit by an independent Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), as was done in the case of discretionary allotments of 2G telecom spectrum and coal mines, can examine and unravel the damage and detriment to the moral, economic and social capital of the country and/or the State due to : (i) Pocketing a substantial premium on account of grant and permission to transfer colony licenses under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1976, in favor of crony capitalists acting as middlemen between the DTCP and the real entrepreneur-colonizer; (ii) Arbitrary exercise of discretion and the role of middlemen in the grant of change in land-use permissions under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963; (iii) Release of land from the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act or land not notified u/s 6 after preliminary notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly cases where the land released was sold to a coloniser who was granted colony license on the released land; and (iv) Loss of Panchayat or common lands in consolidation or partition proceedings described in Chapter 4 of this Report.

Page 79 of 105

Chapter 7 The Two Orders Explained Order dated 12th October, 2012 of the Inspector General of Registration.

The first order at Annexure C-1 with a copy endorsed to the Revenue Department was an order of inquiry passed in the capacity of Inspector General of Registration of Haryana State under the Registration Act, 1908. The inquiry was regarding the alleged under-valuation of some properties registered by Shri Robert Vadra or his companies as either vendor or vendee appearing in news reports. Adverse media reports regarding under-valuations of land deals of Shri Robert Vadra and his companies had appeared on the 8th October, 2012 edition of The Hindu. The idea behind ordering the inquiry was that in case the allegations were false, the fair name of the registering offices of the State would be cleared in the public mind. But in case the allegations were found correct on inquiry, it was fit and appropriate that Mr. Robert Vadra and his Companies make good any loss with penalty to the State due to under-valuation of the registered deeds. After all, Mr. Robert Vadra was fully amenable to the rule of law as any other citizen of this country. This was duly recorded as a note on the file on 12th of October, 2012. Since the undersigned had received his transfer order on the 11th October, 2012 at 10 PM at his residence, there was no alternative but to issue the order of inquiry to the Registrars of the concerned four districts of Gurgaon, Faridabad, Mewat and Palwal. The Deputy Commissioners are notified as Registrars under section 6 of the Registration Act by the State Government, hence there was no alternative other than to direct the Deputy Commissioners in their capacity as Registrars to conduct the inquiry regarding the alleged under-valuation.

Page 80 of 105

The undersigned was meanwhile coordinating with the NIC team to make the data of the offices of Registrars and Sub-Registrars along with the land records data online on the departmental web portal. The cut-off date for completion of this exercise was fixed for November 1, 2012. During this exercise, it was noticed that the district of Gurgaon had not uploaded the digitized data of the registered deeds. The undersigned discussed the matter with the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon on the 8th October, 2012 and advised him to make sincere efforts to digitize the backlog of registration data and to upload the data on the web portal through the district office of NIC. He was also instructed to send the registered deeds of the companies of Mr. Robert Vadra. But there was no compliance to the orders of a superior officer. Meanwhile a story regarding the alleged under-valuation of deeds re-appeared on the 12th October, 2012 edition of The Indian Express. Under-valuation of properties during registration leads to loss of revenues to the State exchequer. In view of the questions raised in reputed national dailies and to clear the fair name of the Registering Offices in Haryana under the charge of the undersigned, the Deputy Commissioners in their capacity as Registrars were ordered to inspect all documents registered from the 1st day of January, 2005 onwards by or on behalf of Shri Robert Vadra or his companies in the capacity of either vendor or vendee and transmit copy of the deeds registered to the office of Inspector General of Registration for examination. They were directed to estimate the real value of the properties conveyed through the registered documents and in case of under-valuations, the matter was to be referred to the Collector under section 47-A of The Indian Stamps Act for correct assessment of the stamp duty payable. The names of some companies of Shri Robert Vadra were also indicated in the said order. The deadline for the inquiry was fixed at October 25, 2012. The Committee mis-interpreted the order to be an

Page 81 of 105

order under section 47-A of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899. This was not an order under The Indian Stamp Act. The impugned order at Annexure C-1 was a purely administrative order under section 69 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908. Section 69 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908 is as under,69. Power of Inspector-General to superintend registration offices and make rules (1) The Inspector-General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration-offices in the territories under the State Government, and shall have power from time to time to make rules consistent with this Act In the light of section 69 (1) as reproduced above, the undersigned in his capacity as Inspector General of Registration was fully competent to order the four Registrars subordinate to him under the Act to carry out the tasks assigned to them. There were two components to the said order of inquiry addressed to the Registrars of the four districts,(i) To compile the list of deeds registered by Mr. Robert Vadra and his Companies in their respective districts and to transmit the same to the office of Inspector General of Registration for examination; and (ii) To conduct inquiry regarding the alleged under-valuation. The Inquiry by the Registrars did not mean merely to compare the valuation of the registered deeds with the respective Collector rates. The Collector rate acts as broad guidance and is not sacrosanct. Under section 47-A of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by the Indian Stamp (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1973, the stamp duty is payable on the real value or consideration and not on the

Page 82 of 105

Collector rate. The valuation or consideration of a transaction depends on multiple factors and cannot be determined by the Collector rate alone. An example was the land deal in village Shikohpur, where valuation of the same land jumped eight times from ` 7.5 crores to ` 58 crores. The difference was due to the grant of commercial colony license on the land, which is not captured in Collector rates. The inquiry by the Registrars was meant to be a comprehensive exercise including site inspection, so that the evidence gathered during the inquiry stood the test of credible evidence in any future proceedings, including the proceedings under section 47-A of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Registrars were required to inquire whether the low purchase rate was due to purchase from co-owners not in possession of jointly held common land and whether the intention of the purchaser was to take possession of prime Khasra numbers using his special influence upon revenue officers to effect partition of the jointly held common land in proceedings under Chapter-IX of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

Shri Krishna Mohan, Chairman of the Committee and Financial Commissioner Revenue, was requested to supply records/ information as per the two queries mentioned below,(i) A copy of all documents registered in any office of Sub-Registrar or Joint Sub-Registrar of the State by the Companies of Mr. Robert Vadra as either vendor or vendee; and (ii) Any representation or appeal or complaint received from Mr. Robert Vadra or M/s DLF or M/s Onkareshwar Properties against the orders passed by the undersigned as Director General, Consolidation of Holdings u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and

Page 83 of 105

Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 or as Inspector General of Registration u/s 69 (1) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

There was no response to the queries requested from the Chairman of the Committee. The undersigned cannot understand how the Committee or the Deputy Commissioners arrived at the finding that there was no under-valuation without placing on record the registered deeds and disclosing the details of the inquiry conducted. Also, when Mr. Robert Vadra was not ostensibly aggrieved with the said order of inquiry, why and how are some functionaries in the State Government aggrieved instead? And is the same yardstick applied for an ordinary citizen?

Regarding the allegation of being selective, the undersigned wishes that before indicting him, the Committee had given an opportunity to him to explain his order. The inquiry was ordered into the alleged under-valuations of deeds registered by the Companies of Mr. Robert Vadra on the basis of stories appearing in reputed national dailies. No other case of under-valuation was brought to knowledge during the short stay of 80 days of the undersigned in the Department. Non-action on specific media reports would have meant dereliction of public duty and misconduct of omission. Media plays a significant role in a democracy and not taking action on well reported stories in the national media would lead to loss of public faith in institutions of governance. A recent example is the Delhi bus gang rape incident of a 23-year old physiotherapy student on the 16th of December, 2012. The national outcry of shame led to unprecedented actions on the part of all authorities, such as special compensation to the victims family; medical treatment of the victim in a Singapore hospital at State expense; visits of

Page 84 of 105

Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of UPA, Rahul Gandhi, Vice President of Indian National Congress and Honble Prime Minister to the family of the victim; cancellation of summer holiday to USA of the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi; day-today trial of all accused in a fast track court; amendment of the Indian Penal Code and fast-tracking of rape trials by the courts all over the country. Should the actions taken by various authorities in the gang-rape case be indicted as being selective or applauded as showing sensitivity?

The undersigned cannot find any fault in the said order made under section 69 (1) of the Registration Act, 1908. Any reference to the Collector of competent jurisdiction under section 47-A of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was to be done after examination of the deeds by the Inspector General of Registration and comprehensive inquiry by the Registrars. Passing of the order on the 12th of October, 2012 was necessitated because the inquiry initiated by the undersigned on the 8th of October, 2012 was sought to be stymied by the premature transfer order on the 11th of October, 2012 late in the evening at 10 PM at his residence. Leaving charge without passing a written order of inquiry would have been an abdication of responsibility and a misconduct of omission on the part of the undersigned. The undersigned held a public office and the exercise of duty was for public good, no matter how great was the personal cost.

Page 85 of 105

Chapter 8 The Two Orders Explained (continued) Order dated 15th October, 2012 of the Director General, Consolidation Acronyms used: ACO: Assistant Consolidation Officer AC2G: Assistant Collector Second Grade

At the outset, the undersigned wishes to make it abundantly clear that the order at Annexure C-2 is a quasi-judicial order under section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act of 1948, for short. Section 42 of the Act reads as under,42. Power of [State] Government to call for proceedings: The State Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass order in reference thereto thinks fit: Provided that no order or scheme or repartition shall be varied or reversed without giving the parties interested notice to appear and opportunity to be heard except in cases where the State Government is satisfied that the proceedings have been vitiated by unlawful consideration.

The powers of the State Government exercisable under section 42 of the Consolidation Act of 1948 were delegated to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings under section 41 (1) of the Act vide the State Governments notification

Page 86 of 105

dated 22nd April, 1983. This position was admitted by the Revenue Department before the Honble High Court in a pending Civil Writ Petitio n No. 21217 of 2012. The order under section 42 of the Consolidation Act of 1948 is final and the only recourse to an aggrieved party is to approach the Honble High Court by way of filing a writ petition. This position was laid down in CWP No. 17775 of 2010, wherein the Honble High Court in an order dated 6th September, 2012, passed a direction to the Chief Secretary to direct all the Divisional Commissioners to compile all orders passed under section 42 illegally transferring Gram Panchayat lands to private builders/colonizers without jurisdiction and place the same before it for appropriate orders. More details of this order are at Section 4.7 of Chapter 4 of this Report. The Chairman of the Committee was requested to inform whether any representation or appeal or complaint was received from Mr. Robert Vadra or M/s DLF or M/s Onkareshwar Properties against the order at Annexure C-2 passed by the undersigned as Director General, Consolidation of Holdings u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. There was no response. If M/s Sky Light Hospitality or M/s DLF Universal Limited are not aggrieved by the order dated 15th October, 2012 cancelling the mutation, it is not understood why and how some functionaries in the Government are aggrieved. Is the same yard stick applied for an ordinary citizen? The order at Annexure C-2 is regarding the cancellation of a mutation no. 4513 sanctioned without jurisdiction by the ACO, Gurgaon, on 20.09.2012. The mutation pertains to village Shikohpur [Hadbast No. 160], district Gurgaon, giving effect to the sale deed no. 1435 dated 18.09.2012. The impugned order has been adversely criticized in the Committees Report without hearing the undersigned. The motive seems to divert public attention from a well-organized

Page 87 of 105

racket in the Department of Town & Country Planning of milking huge premiums in colony licenses by routing them through selected cronies, an example of which is described in Chapter 6 of this Report. It is necessary, therefore, to clear the issues raised by the Committee in its Report regarding the impugned order at Annexure C-2 in the proper legal and ethical perspectives.

8.1

Whether the ACO is conferred with the powers of AC2G (Assistant Collector Second Grade) under the Punjab Land Revenue Act? The ACO is a Group-C employee of the Directorate of Consolidation

of Holdings. The Naib-Tehisldar is a Group-B officer of the Revenue Department and is ex-officio AC2G under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The class of revenue officers is defined in Chapter-II of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Only a revenue officer under section 6 or a person conferred with the powers of Assistant Collector under clause (b) of section 27 (1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act is competent to sanction mutations or amend entries in the possession column of the Khasra Girdawari. The ACO is neither a revenue officer nor conferred by any Government notification with the powers of Assistant Collector under clause (b) of section 27 (1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is reproduced below,27. Conferment of powers by Revenue-officer: (1) The State Government may by notification confer on any person -a) all or any of the powers of a Financial Commissioner, Commissioner or Collector under this Act; or b) all or any of the powers with which an Assistant Collector may be invested there under and may by notification withdraw any powers so conferred.

Page 88 of 105

Matter sub-judice in CWP No. 21217 of 2012: Another order dated 21.09.20128 of the undersigned under section 42 of the Consolidation Act of 1948 setting aside the change of possession entry in the Khasra Girdawari by the ACO in village Chirsi, district Faridabad, under consolidation on identical ground that the ACO lacked jurisdiction and was not conferred with the powers of AC2G is currently under adjudication in a pending Civil Writ Petition No. 21217 of 2012 before the Honble High Court. Shri Krishna Mohan, Chairman of the Committee and Shri Ashok Yadav, Secretary of the Committee were in full knowledge that the question whether the ACO is conferred with the powers of AC2G is sub-judice in CWP No. 21217 of 2012. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Chairman and the Secretary of the Committee to disclose the pendency of the writ petition to the Committee and to refrain from commenting on an issue which is the subject matter of adjudication in a pending writ petition before the Honble High Court. Identical pleadings were taken regarding the powers of ACO under the Punjab Land Revenue Act in the reply submitted by the Revenue Department to the Honble High Court. It is unfortunate that the Revenue Department did not tender a truthful and correct reply to the query of the Hon'ble High Court whether the ACO was conferred with the powers of AC2G under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Background of exercise of powers of AC2G by the ACO in the past: Reference to a Notification No. 5215-E dated 1.12.1942 of preindependence Punjab at Annexure B-1 to the Committees Report is totally irrelevant to the determination of the main issue, i.e., whether the ACO of present day Haryana is conferred with the powers of AC2G under the Punjab Land Revenue

At Annexure C-10.

Page 89 of 105

Act. The Consolidation Naib-Tehsildar referred to in the above notification9 worked under the Cooperative Department of pre-independence Punjab and is not the ACO of the Consolidation of Holdings Department of post-1966 Haryana. Before the East Punjab Act 50 of 1948, which repealed the earlier Punjab Act IV of 1936, there were two methods of consolidation in pre-independence Punjab. One was through the Revenue Department and the other through the Cooperative Department. Under the revenue method of consolidation, if not less than two thirds of the land owners in an estate or a subdivision of an estate holding not less than three fourth of the cultivated area, made an application for the consolidation of their holdings, the application was deemed to be an application on behalf of all the land-owners, and any scheme of consolidation if confirmed in such a case it became binding on all the land owners and their successors-ininterest. Under the cooperative method of consolidation, the proprietary body had to agree to the scheme of consolidation and in case of disagreement, recourse was made to arbitration. The earlier pre-independence Punjab Act IV of 1936, viz, The Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1936, was considered to be defective in as much as it did not give sufficient powers to Government to undertake compulsory consolidation of holdings. Besides there was no provision in it to avoid fragmentation of holdings due to partition between co-sharers and other causes. As the prosperity of the peasantry depended chiefly on the size of holdings in the country, the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1936 was repealed and replaced by a new enactment, viz, The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The new East Punjab Act 50 of 1948 was designed to consolidate holdings in villages compulsorily and to avoid fragmentation of holdings. At the time the 1936 Act was in force in pre--

At Annexure B-1 to the Committees Report.

Page 90 of 105

independence Punjab, the Consolidation Tehsildar and Consolidation NaibTehsildar worked under the Cooperatives Department for consolidation of land holdings of a registered cooperative society. The duties of Consolidation Tehsildars and Consolidation Naib-Tehsildars were codified in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the instruction booklet of the Cooperatives Department meant for the guidance of the Consolidation of Holdings Staff and issued in the year 1943 from Lahore, the capital of pre-independence Punjab. These Consolidation Tehsildars and Consolidation Naib-Tehsildars were conferred with the powers of AC2G under section 27 (1) of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 vide notification No. 5215-E dated 1st December, 1942. These powers were to be exercised in the context of consolidation of fragmented holdings by registered cooperative consolidation of holding societies and for the estates located in only ten districts of preindependence Punjab, of which just two districts, Kamal and Ambala, fall in post1966 Haryana. The work of consolidation of holdings by the Cooperative Department ceased in the year 1948 with the repeal of the Punjab Act IV of 1936 by section 47 of the East Punjab Act 50 of 1948. After the said repeal, the powers earlier conferred upon Consolidation Tehsildar and Consolidation Naib-Tehsildar (vide notification dated 1.12.1942), in the context of the pre-independence 1936 Consolidation Act, were rendered completely infructuous. In other words, the said notification issued under the 1887 Punjab Land Revenue Act may have notionally survived, but was effectively displaced or uprooted, as it were, by the repeal of the 1936 Consolidation Act in the year 1948. This is corroborated by the corresponding change in the general instructions regarding sanction of mutations for the consolidation of holdings effected by cooperative consolidation societies in clauses (viii) & (ix) of Para 7.4 of the Punjab Land Records Manual.

Page 91 of 105

The Committees observation that the powers of the undersigned under section 42 of the Consolidation Act, 1948 would certainly not extend to activities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 188710 is grossly misplaced. The observations are totally contrary to previous discussion regarding Consolidation officers dealing with mutations as per established practice. The Director (Consolidation) is delegated the powers under section 42 of the Consolidation Act of 1948. By virtue of the above powers, the Director (Consolidation) exercises revisionary jurisdiction to correct any illegality or impropriety committed under the Act. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the mutation could have been annulled under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the Director of Consolidation of Holdings is appointed as the Collector in the estates under consolidation or already consolidated by the State Government vide Punjab Government Notification No. 4440-G-50/I-2976 dated 08.07.1950.

Whether past practice conferred statutory power of AC2G upon the ACO? The principle formulated by the Committee that past practice conferred powers of AC2G upon the ACO is a spurious rationalization of the illegal usurpation of powers of AC2G by the ACO. The instruction booklets issued by the Directors of Consolidation of Holdings in the years 1950, 1957, 1963 and 1989 cannot confer powers of AC2G upon the ACO when no such powers have been conferred upon them under section 27 (1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act by the State Government. The instructions issued by the Directors of Consolidation from time to time were not interpreted by the Committee in the correct context. Earlier to the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, the Naib-

10

Para 28 (d) in Page 84 of the Committees Report.

Page 92 of 105

Tehsildars of the Revenue Department who were conferred the powers of AC2G came on deputation as ACO to the Consolidation Department and acted as such. But sometime in the year 1999-2000, after the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, the Naib-Tehsildars were upgraded to higher pay scales and became Group-B officers, whereas the ACOs of the Consolidation Department remained Group-C employees.

While citing the earlier instruction booklets issued by the Directors of Consolidation, the Committee conveniently ignored the instruction issued in the shape of clarification to all the Divisional Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Settlement Officers and Consolidation Officers by the undersigned regarding nonconferment of powers of AC2G upon the ACO. A copy of the said instruction issued vide Memo No. JA/4348-4457 dated 4.10.2012 is at Annexure C-21.

Preparation of record of right after re-partition in consolidation proceedings: Section 22 of the Consolidation Act of 1948 is regarding the preparation of record of rights for the purpose of consolidation after re-partition. Sections 21 & 22 of the Consolidation Act of 1948 are reproduced as below,-

21. Repartition (1) The Consolidation Officer shall, after obtaining the advice of the landowners of the estate or estates concerned, carry out repartition in accordance with the scheme of consolidation of holdings confirmed under section 20, and the boundaries of the holdings as demarcated shall be shown on the shajra which shall be published in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned. (2) Any person aggrieved by the repartition may file a written objection within fifteen days of the publication before the Consolidation Officer who

Page 93 of 105

shall after hearing the objector pass such order as he considers proper confirming or modifying the repartition.

22. Preparation of record of rights. - (1) The Consolidation Officer shall cause to be prepared a new record of rights in accordance with the provision contained in Chapter IV of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), in so far as these provisions may be applicable for the area under consolidation giving effect to the repartition and order in respect thereof made under the preceding section. (2) Such record or right shall be deemed to have been prepared under section 32 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

In this context, a reference to Para 7.21 of the Haryana Land Records Manual is important,7.21. In respect of consolidation of holdings affected by Consolidation of Holdings, two mutations should be entered, namely, one (of ishtarak) showing the separate holdings affected by the consolidation as the joint property of the proprietors of those holdings and the other of partition showing the area allotted, to each owner or group of owners. No fee shall be charged on the first mutation (ishtarak) nor on the second mutation (taqsim) relating to the entry of transfer of holdings between owners etc. on the analogy of the orders contained in paragraph 7 of Appendix XIV to the Settlement Manual. The Consolidation Officer is authorised to sanction two mutations, the first mutation is called ishtarak, showing separate holdings affected by the consolidation as the joint property of the proprietors of those holdings. The second mutation is called taqsim or re-partition, showing the specific areas allotted to each owner. Section 22 of the Consolidation Act of 1948 confers the

Page 94 of 105

powers of a revenue officer upon the Consolidation Officer to prepare the new record of rights after re-partition or taqsim. The Consolidation Officer with the sanction of the State Government is authorised to delegate his powers or functions under section 41 (2) of the Consolidation Act. There is no such order of delegation conferring powers or functions of the Consolidation Officer upon the ACO. Moreover, the impugned mutation no. 4513 sanctioned without jurisdiction by the ACO on 20.09.2012 is not covered within the scope and meaning of section 22 of the Consolidation Act of 1948. Such mutations can only be sanctioned by a revenue officer under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and not by the ACO under any section of the Consolidation Act of 1948.

The advice of the Committee that the undersigned ought to have referred the matter to the Law Secretary before arriving at the conclusion that the ACO is not conferred with the powers of AC2G is not proper. An order under section 42 of the Consolidation Act of 1948 is quasi-judicial. There are umpteen cases where the Law Secretary did not consider appropriate to tender advice or opinion in quasi-judicial proceedings. Seeking advice or opinion of the Law Secretary in quasi-judicial proceedings under section 42 of the Consolidation Act was not only unnecessary but wholly unwarranted.

8.2

Whether the impugned land comprised in Khasra number 730 was covered under section 14 (1) notification The land comprising in Khasra No. 730 is land within the meaning

of section 2 (d) of the Consolidation Act of 1948, which reads as follows,-

2 (d): land means land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or left for agricultural

Page 95 of 105

purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture, and includes the sites of building and other structures on such land;

Land comprised in Khasra number 730 was not excluded from consolidation proceedings in the notification under section 14 (1) of the Consolidation Act. The contention of the Committee that because change in land use permission was accorded under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 or because commercial colony license was granted to M/s Sky Light Hospitality on 15.12.2008, therefore Khasra No. 730 was excluded from the definition of land and not covered under the consolidation proceedings is ill-founded. The notification under section 14 (1) for consolidation of the lands comprised in the revenue estate of village Shikohpur including Khasra No. 730 came into force vide Notification No. 6923-24 dated 7.11.1989. The draft consolidation scheme was published on 27.11.2004 by the consolidation officer under section 19 (1). The objections to the draft consolidation scheme was forwarded to the Settlement Officer for confirmation under section 20 (3) on 17.1.2006. An illegal order dated 20.03.2008 of the then Director of Consolidation declaring the village unfit for consolidation was withdrawn on 23.8.2011 in compliance with an order dated 4.5.2011 of the Honble High Court in CWP No. 13278 of 2008. It was the duty of the Department of Town & Country Planning, therefore, to seek prior approval of the Director, Consolidation before granting change of land-use permission or colony license in an estate under consolidation. Moreover, there is not a single brick in the name of development of commercial colony at Khasra No. 730 even today, though commercial colony license was granted for two years on 15.12.2008 and subsequently renewed on 18.01.2011 for another two years up to 14.12.2012.

Page 96 of 105

8.3

Applicability of section 30 of the Consolidation Act of 1948 It was observed in the impugned order dated 15.10.2012 of the

undersigned that the DTCPs permission to sell the impugned property on 3.4.2012 vide Memo no. LC-1868-JE(VA)-2012/4786 falls foul of section 30 of the Consolidation Act of 1948. The action of the sub-registrar, Manesar to register the property on 18.09.2012 when the estate of Shikohpur was under consolidation was not proper. The Committee cited some Court rulings to support the view that the provisions of section 30 are attracted after the publication of the draft consolidation scheme under section 19 of the Consolidation Act of 1948. Section 30 of the Consolidation Act reads as follows,30. Transfer of property during consolidation proceedings. - After a notification under sub-section (1) of section 14 has been issued and during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings no landowner or tenant having a right of occupancy upon whom the scheme will be binding shall have power without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer to transfer or otherwise deal with any portion of his original holding or other tenancy so as to affect the rights of the other landowner or tenant having a right to occupancy therein under the scheme of consolidation.

The draft scheme of consolidation for village Shikohpur, district Gurgaon, was published under section 19 (1) of the Consolidation Act on the 27th of November, 2004 by the Consolidation Officer, Gurgaon, as per entry at serial no. 325 in the consolidation proceedings register. A total of 33 objections were received which were forwarded with remarks by the Consolidation Officer, Gurgaon, to the Settlement Officer, Rohtak, vide his letter no. 23 dated 17.01.2006 for consideration under section 20 (3) of the Act. However, the then Director of

Page 97 of 105

Consolidation passed an illegal order vide order No. 1097-1100 dated 20.03.2008 declaring the village of Shikohpur unfit for consolidation. This particular Director was involved in several illegal transfers of precious Panchayat lands for which his conduct came under scathing criticism of the Honble High Court, e.g. in CWP No. 17775 of 2010 described at section 4.7 of Chapter 4 of this Report and in CWP No. 2163 of 2010. Later, based upon an affidavit filed by the then incumbent Director, Shri T.V.S.N. Prasad, that there was no provision in view of the preamble and objects of the Consolidation Act of 1948 to declare a village unfit for consolidation, the Honble High Court vide an order dated 4th May, 2011 in CWP No. 13278 of 2008, issued a direction to the statutory authorities to carry out their duties as entrusted by the Statute. The consolidation work in village Shikohpur was recommenced in compliance with the directions of the Honble High Court vide order No. 3110-14 dated 23.08.2011 of the Director, Consolidation. Due to the recommencement of the consolidation proceedings, the correct legal position is that the draft consolidation scheme prepared under section 19 (1) was pending confirmation of the Settlement Officer, Rohtak under section 20 (3) of the Act. Section 30 of the Consolidation Act was, therefore, in full force in village Shikohpur at the time the sale deed no. 1435 was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Manesar on 18.09.2012 and also when the mutation no. 4513 was sanctioned illegally without jurisdiction by the ACO on 20.09.2012. The permission of the Consolidation Officer, Gurgaon was mandatory under section 30 of the Consolidation Act before registering the sale deed and sanctioning the consequent mutation.

8.4

Allegation of being Selective Had the Committee been fair and heard the undersigned, the

allegation of being selective against Mr. Robert Vadras Company would not have

Page 98 of 105

arisen. There were two other cases of like nature. In the first case, a reference was received for prosecution sanction from the Police Station Siwani, District Hisar, against the ACO of district Hisar in FIR No. 41 dated 5.5.2012. The ACO had wrongly changed the possession entry in the Khasra Girdawari on 8.2.2012, usurping the powers of AC2G under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The order was set aside in appeal on 14.08.2012 by the Settlement Officer, Bhiwani. While according prosecution sanction, the ACO was also charge sheeted for major penalty. In a second case, the order of the ACO, Faridabad was set aside where the ACO usurping the powers of AC2G had changed possession entry in Khasra Girdawari in village Chirsi. The case is described in detail in Section 4.4 of Chapter 4 of this Report. The order dated 21.09.201211 setting aside the order of the ACO under section 42 of the Consolidation Act of 1948 is currently under challenge in CWP No. 21217 of 2012 before the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The Chairman of the Committee being Financial Commissioner Revenue was fully aware of the above writ petition, having approved the response of the Department filed in the Honble High Court. To ignore the existence of the order at Annexure C-10 which is the subject matter of CWP No. 21217 of 2012 before the Committee was not a fair act on his part. There were thus two other orders of similar nature. No other case was brought to the notice of the undersigned during the short stay of 80 days in the Department. The allegation of being selective is not supported by evidence and is not true.

11

At Annexure C-10.

Page 99 of 105

8.5

Principle of Natural Justice In a case where no principles mattered, it would be unfair to judge

the act of cancellation of mutation no. 4513 from a purists view of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the rule of audi alteram partem is inapplicable not by way of an exception to fair play in action, but nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an opportunity to either party to present or meet the case. Fairness cannot be made counterproductive by prolonging the proceedings unnecessarily. In this case the principle of audi alteram partem was inapplicable because no prejudice was caused or the right of any party infringed by the cancellation of the mutation on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the ACO. Besides, only one conclusion was possible in the case and therefore it was futile to observe the principles of natural justice 12. The result would not have been different by hearing either party. There was no Government notification under section 27 (1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, conferring powers of AC2G upon the ACO. The absence of a notification cannot get altered by hearing either M/s DLF Universal or M/s Sky Light Hospitality13. The Honble Supreme Court applied this theory in Dharmarathmakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution vs. Education Appellate Tribunal in (1999) 7 SCC 332. Thus, in cases where grant of opportunity in terms of the principles of natural justice does not improve the situation, useless formality theory is pressed into service14. In 2007 (4) SCC 54, Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India & Ors., the Honble Supreme Court held that it is well-settled that the principles of natural
12

S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379, 395. R.V. Eailing Magistrates Court, ex p. Fannaran, (1996) 8 Admn LR, 351, 358 (Lord S traughton). Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das, (2003) 4 SCC 557.

13

14

Page 100 of 105

justice cannot be applied in a vacuum. They cannot be put in any straitjacket formula. It may not be applicable in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. It is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise. A court of law does not insist on compliance with useless formality. It will not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same, in view of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences. In Aligarh Muslim University and Others v. Mansoor Ali Khan 15, the law is stated in the following terms: "25. The useless formality theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from the class of cases of admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion referred to above, there has been considerable debate on the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta referred to above. This Court surveyed the views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J. and Straughton, L.J. etc. in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, de Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the court will be prejudging the issue. Some others have said that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via media rules. We do not think it necessary in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on the facts of a particular case.

15

(2000) 7 SCC 529

Page 101 of 105

In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. S.G. Kotturappa and Another16, the Honble Supreme Court held: "The question as to what extent, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. They cannot be put in any straitjacket formula. The principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality. What is needed for the employer in a case of this nature is to apply the objective criteria for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. If the criteria required for arriving at an objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the principles of natural justice may not have to be complied with, in view of the fact that the same stood complied with before imposing punishments upon the respondents on each occasion and, thus, the respondents, therefore, could not have improved their stand even if a further opportunity was given" In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Manjeet Singh and Another17, the Honble Supreme Court opined: "The principles of natural justice were also not required to be complied with as the same would have been an empty formality. The court will not insist on compliance with the principles of natural justice in view of the binding nature of the award. Their application would be limited to a situation where the factual position or legal implication arising thereunder is disputed and not where it is not in dispute or cannot be disputed. If only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not issue only because there was a violation of the principle of natural justice."

16

(2005) 3 SCC 409 (2006) 8 SCC 647.

17

Page 102 of 105

In P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others18, the Honble Supreme Court observed: "The Principles of natural justice cannot be put in a strait jacket formula. It must be seen in circumstantial flexibility. It has separate facets. It has in recent time also undergone a sea change." It was further observed: "Decision of this Court in S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan & Ors.19, whereupon Mr. Rao placed strong reliance to contend that non- observance of principle of natural justice itself causes prejudice or the same should not be read "as it causes difficulty of prejudice", cannot be said to be applicable in the instant case. The principles of natural justice, as noticed hereinbefore, has undergone a sea change. In view of the decision of this Court in State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma20 and Rajendra Singh vs. State of M.P.21, the principle of law is that some real prejudice must have been caused to the complainant. The Court has shifted from its earlier concept that even a small violation shall result in the order being rendered a nullity. To the principal doctrine of audi alteram partem, a clear distinction has been laid down between the cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principal. The Court applies the principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case. It is not applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It is no unruly horse. It cannot be put in a straightjacket formula."

8.6

Post-transfer order The transfer order was delivered to the undersigned at 10 PM in the

night at his residence on the 11th of October, 2012. The earliest the undersigned could have relinquished charge of the office was on the next working day, i.e., on
18 19

(2006) 8 SCC 776. (1980) 4 SCC 379. 20 (1996) 3 SCC 364. 21 [(1996) 5 SCC 460.

Page 103 of 105

Friday, the 12th of October, 2012. As per Notification No.11031/03/2008-AIS-II(A) dated 21.07.2009 at Annexure C-18 applicable for Haryana State of the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955, read with rule 4 (1) of the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, the minimum tenure for posting is two years. Transfer before the completion of the minimum tenure after the Government notification dated 21.07.2009 was illegal. The undersigned, therefore, made a representation to the Chief Secretary on the same day against the order of transfer vide his letter dated 12.10.2012 at Annexure C-3, which was to be inquired into by the Committee. But the Committee abdicated itself of this responsibility and devoted all efforts in according a clean chit to Mr. Robert Vadras land-licensing transaction, which was nothing but an organised loot of public wealth. The undersigned had no option but to await a decision from the State Government against the premature order of transfer and that too to a post meant for very junior officers. The next two days, being Saturday and Sunday, were office holidays, and it was not possible to relinquish charge on holidays. The next incumbent to the post had also not joined the post consequent to the order of transfer. On Monday, the 15th of October, 2012, the undersigned made inquiries from the office of the Chief Secretary. On being informed that there was no decision on the representation against the order of transfer, the undersigned relinquished charge of the post and assumed charge of the new office under protest on the 2nd working day after the transfer, i.e., on Monday, the 15th of October, 2012. This was not an isolated case where charge of the office was relinquished upon transfer on the 2nd working day, i.e., after a delay of one working day. There are several examples, where the officer relinquished charge much after the date of transfer. Since the undersigned was receiving salary on the old post from the Consolidated Fund of the State, the undersigned could not have sat idle on the old

Page 104 of 105

post awaiting the decision of the State Government on his representation against the transfer order. Each and every penny from the public purse must be accounted for. While the undersigned was awaiting a decision from the State Government on his representation against the order of transfer, each and every minute was utilised in performing official duty to justify the trust of the people in public office. The undersigned continued to work as Director General, Consolidation of Holdings and Inspector General of Registration up to the date and time of relinquishing charge of the office on 15.10.2012 at 4:30 PM. The order of cancellation of mutation was passed at around 10 AM on 15.10.2012 and dispatched by Post and by FAX by 11 AM on the same day. The undersigned could not have abdicated his responsibility because of the involvement of VVIPs in sham transactions acting as middlemen between the Department of Town & Country Planning and the real entrepreneurs to corner the premium accruing on account of the grant of colony licenses and which actually belong to the public. Not passing the order on the ground that the undersigned was under transfer would have been an act of cowardice, betrayal of public trust and dereliction of duty amounting to misconduct of omission. This is akin to a situation where a crime by a VVIP is reported to the Station House Officer (SHO) of a Police Station. As soon as steps are initiated to register the FIR and to arrest the VVIP accused, the SHOs transfer order is wired instantly. Whether the SHO should fulfil his responsibility of registering the FIR and arresting the VVIP accused before relinquishing charge of his office upon receiving the transfer order would ever remain an unresolved dilemma, especially when topmost decision makers in Government are accused of the crime. The undersigned acted as per the highest dictates of his conscience in passing the order at Annexure C-2 on the 15th of October, 2012 and fulfilled his bounden duty. To impeach this as improper is to term the meaning of the term inside out.

Page 105 of 105

8.7

Advice to the Department of Town & Country Planning The Department of Town & Country Planning had earlier earned a

sharp rap on its knuckles in CWP No. 826 of 2011, M/s Aaliyah Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, wherein the Honble High Court vide judgment dated June 2, 2011 ordered that if any further colony license was to be granted to any builder, the Competent Authority shall look into that there was no violation of the provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 or any other statute. To overcome the adverse fallout of the judgment in CWP No. 826 of 2011, the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 was amended with retrospective effect from the 30th of January, 1975 vide Haryana Act No. 20 of 2011 notified on the 19th of October, 2011, giving primacy to the interests of builders over farmers. All colony licenses granted to colonizers on agriculture lands in the past in violation of the Ceiling Act of 1972 were regularized with this sweeping retrospective amendment. The Department of Town & Country Planning was rightly advised in the impugned order at Annexure C-2 not to grant or renew colony license or change in land-use permission in violation of the Consolidation Act of 1948 or the Land Ceiling Act of 1972 at least in the future.

This response may be read as whole, from Chapter 1 to Chapter 8. Thanking you, Sincerely,

Date: 21st May, 2013.

(Dr. ASHOK KHEMKA, IAS) Former Director General, Land Records & Consolidation of Holdings cumInspector General of Registration, Haryana.

------------------- ANNEXURES FOLLOW -------------------