A Haryana government panel has submitted its report on its investigation of allegations that laws were flouted in granting land licences to some companies, including one owned by Robert Vadra, the son-in-law of Congress chief Sonia Gandhi.
The one-man justice SN Dhingra commission of inquiry, set up by the BJP government in May 2015 , submitted its report to chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar on the Wednesday.
“I wouldn’t have submitted a 182-page report if there was no irregularity (in grant of land licences in Gurgaon),” Dhingra told reporters.
The panel was asked to probe licences given by the previous Bhupinder Singh Hooda-led Congress government for the development of colonies, housing societies and commercial complexes in four Guragon villages of Sihi, Shikohpur, Kherki Daula and Sikanderpur Bada.
The inquiry panel, which was given three extensions, examined 250 files pertaining to over 100 licences, CLU (change of land use) and layout plans and examined 30 witnesses, including several bureaucrats.
Justice Dhingra, a former Delhi high court judge, had on June 30 sought a last-minute extension to study additional evidence and documents about some “benami properties in Gurgaon area”.
“The additional information and documents have been of help. However, no witnesses were called during this extended period,” he had told HT.
“I cant talk about contents of the report right now, until government decides to make the content public,” Dhingra said.
Vadra had termed the inquiry as a “political witch-hunt” launched against him by the BJP government in Haryana.
He and Hooda were summoned by the commission but refused to join probe.
Vadra and others were allegedly granted favours by the Hooda government in issuing licenses to develop commercial properties in Gurgaon’s Sector 83.
The comptroller and auditor general had pointed out that Vadra’s firm, Skylight Hospitality, had not submitted documents on financial adequacy but was granted a licence.
Earlier, Hooda had objected to the setting up of the commission, saying it was “contrary to established rules and norms, without due cabinet approval and prompted by malice and political considerations”.