Advertisement

HindustanTimes Thu,18 Sep 2014

Vadra-DLF deal: Decoding the land controversy

Hitender Rao, Hindustan Times   August 20, 2013
First Published: 17:42 IST(20/8/2013) | Last Updated: 18:29 IST(20/8/2013)

With the Onkareshwar-Vadra-DLF deal in the eye of a storm, the complex issue seems to be getting more and more muddled. Hitender Rao takes a closer look at the issues in question, scrutinising IAS officer Ashok Khemka's orders and the observations of the three-member committee set up by the Haryana government.

Advertisement

Mutation

Khemka ordered setting aside of mutation of 3.53 acres in Gurgaon’s Shikohpur — the land that was sold by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s businessman son-in-law Robert Vadra to realty major DLF — under section 42 of Consolidation Act.

Khemka

(i) Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO) who sanctioned the mutation was not competent to do so.
 
(ii) After notification under section 14 (1) of Act on August 5, 2011, all property under consolidation vests in the government till re-partition. Order under section 42 of the Act is final and the only recourse for an aggrieved party is to petition the High court. Committee’s observation that powers under Section 42 of the Act would not extend to activities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act is grossly misplaced. Director General, Consolidation of Holdings (DGCH) has been delegated powers under section 42 and exercises revisionary jurisdiction to correct any illegality or impropriety committed. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the mutation could have been annulled only under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the DGCH is appointed as the Collector in the estates under consolidation vide a Punjab government notification of July 1950.


Committee report:

(i) Between 1990-2012, about 1,400 buy-sell transactions took place in Shikohpur which were recorded by the consolidation patwari and approved by the ACO. Though the state government didn’t issue a notification to authorise the ACO with the powers to sanction mutations, no one except the consolidation patwari and ACO could have updated- sanctioned the revenue records, since they were custodians of revenue record all this while. When an exercise is widely prevalent, undisputed and uncontested, it attains the force of law.

(ii) The government had only issued a notification under section 14 (1) of the Consolidation Act thus declaring the intent of making a scheme for consolidation. No notification of the scheme under sections 19 and 20 of the Act was made and the actual consolidation process never commenced in Shikohpur. (iii) If a dispute pertaining to the recording/sanctioning of mutation arose, the appeal under the Punjab Land Revenue Act


licensing

Khemka ordered setting aside of mutation of 3.53 acres in Gurgaon’s Shikohpur — the land that was sold by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s businessman son-in-law Robert Vadra to realty major DLF — under section 42 of Consolidation Act.

Khemka: 

i)Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO) who sanctioned the mutation was not competent to do so.

(ii) After notification under section 14 (1) of Act on August 5, 2011, all property under consolidation vests in the government till re-partition. Order under section 42 of the Act is final and the only recourse for an aggrieved party is to petition the High court. Committee’s observation that powers under Section 42 of the Act would not extend to activities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act is grossly misplaced. Director General, Consolidation of Holdings (DGCH) has been delegated powers under section 42 and exercises revisionary jurisdiction to correct any illegality or impropriety committed. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the mutation could have been annulled only under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the DGCH is appointed as the Collector in the estates under consolidation vide a Punjab government notification of July 1950.

Committee report:

(i) Between 1990-2012, about 1,400 buy-sell transactions took place in Shikohpur which were recorded by the consolidation patwari and approved by the ACO. Though the state government didn’t issue a notification to authorise the ACO with the powers to sanction mutations, no one except the consolidation patwari and ACO could have updated- sanctioned the revenue records, since they were custodians of revenue record all this while. When an exercise is widely prevalent, undisputed and uncontested, it attains the force of law.

(ii) The government had only issued a notification under section 14 (1) of the Consolidation Act thus declaring the intent of making a scheme for consolidation. No notification of the scheme under sections 19 and 20 of the Act was made and the actual consolidation process never commenced in Shikohpur. (iii) If a dispute pertaining to the recording/sanctioning of mutation arose, the appeal under the Punjab Land Revenue Act


under-valuation

Khemka ordered setting aside of mutation of 3.53 acres in Gurgaon’s Shikohpur — the land that was sold by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s businessman son-in-law Robert Vadra to realty major DLF — under section 42 of Consolidation Act.


Khemka:
 
(i) Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO) who sanctioned the mutation was not competent to do so.
 
(ii) After notification under section 14 (1) of Act on August 5, 2011, all property under consolidation vests in the government till re-partition. Order under section 42 of the Act is final and the only recourse for an aggrieved party is to petition the High court. Committee’s observation that powers under Section 42 of the Act would not extend to activities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act is grossly misplaced. Director General, Consolidation of Holdings (DGCH) has been delegated powers under section 42 and exercises revisionary jurisdiction to correct any illegality or impropriety committed. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the mutation could have been annulled only under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the DGCH is appointed as the Collector in the estates under consolidation vide a Punjab government notification of July 1950.

Committee report:

(i) Between 1990-2012, about 1,400 buy-sell transactions took place in Shikohpur which were recorded by the consolidation patwari and approved by the ACO. Though the state government didn’t issue a notification to authorise the ACO with the powers to sanction mutations, no one except the consolidation patwari and ACO could have updated- sanctioned the revenue records, since they were custodians of revenue record all this while. When an exercise is widely prevalent, undisputed and uncontested, it attains the force of law.

(ii) The government had only issued a notification under section 14 (1) of the Consolidation Act thus declaring the intent of making a scheme for consolidation. No notification of the scheme under sections 19 and 20 of the Act was made and the actual consolidation process never commenced in Shikohpur. (iii) If a dispute pertaining to the recording/sanctioning of mutation arose, the appeal under the Punjab Land Revenue Act

onkareshwar

Khemka ordered setting aside of mutation of 3.53 acres in Gurgaon’s Shikohpur — the land that was sold by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s businessman son-in-law Robert Vadra to realty major DLF — under section 42 of Consolidation Act.

Khemka:  

(i) Assistant Consolidation Officer (ACO) who sanctioned the mutation was not competent to do so.

(ii) After notification under section 14 (1) of Act on August 5, 2011, all property under consolidation vests in the government till re-partition. Order under section 42 of the Act is final and the only recourse for an aggrieved party is to petition the High court. Committee’s observation that powers under Section 42 of the Act would not extend to activities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act is grossly misplaced. Director General, Consolidation of Holdings (DGCH) has been delegated powers under section 42 and exercises revisionary jurisdiction to correct any illegality or impropriety committed. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the mutation could have been annulled only under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the DGCH is appointed as the Collector in the estates under consolidation vide a Punjab government notification of July 1950.

Committee report:

(i) Between 1990-2012, about 1,400 buy-sell transactions took place in Shikohpur which were recorded by the consolidation patwari and approved by the ACO. Though the state government didn’t issue a notification to authorise the ACO with the powers to sanction mutations, no one except the consolidation patwari and ACO could have updated- sanctioned the revenue records, since they were custodians of revenue record all this while. When an exercise is widely prevalent, undisputed and uncontested, it attains the force of law.

(ii) The government had only issued a notification under section 14 (1) of the Consolidation Act thus declaring the intent of making a scheme for consolidation. No notification of the scheme under sections 19 and 20 of the Act was made and the actual consolidation process never commenced in Shikohpur. (iii) If a dispute pertaining to the recording/sanctioning of mutation arose, the appeal under the Punjab Land Revenue Act

.


Advertisement
more from India

Bungalow row: 18 injured as Ajit Singh's supporters clash with police

Ajit Singh's supporters on Thursday clashed with police while protesting against Centre's move to evict him from official residence in Delhi, while the RLD chief demanded that the house be converted into a memorial to his father, former prime minister Charan Singh.
Advertisement
Most Popular
Advertisement
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 HT Media Limited. All Rights Reserved