Haryana govt defends Vadra's title to Gurgaon land
Haryana IAS officer Ashok Khemka's outburst, accusing government officials of irregularities and cronyism over the land deals of Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Sonia Gandhi, has drawn a denial from the state.india Updated: Aug 12, 2013 02:23 IST
Haryana IAS officer Ashok Khemka's outburst, accusing government officials of irregularities and cronyism over the land deals of Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Sonia Gandhi, has drawn a denial from the state.
Referring to the adverse report of a panel set up to probe his cancellation of the mutation of 3,5 acres in Gurgaon, Khemka had alleged that Vadra's Skylight Hospitality had received favours from the government. He had also asked if Skylight Hospitality or DLF, to which the land had been sold, were not aggrieved, why some Haryana government functionaries were "aggrieved".
On Sunday, defending Vadra's land deal, the government said the allegations have not "an iota of truth". Vadra's ownership of the disputed 3.5 acres in Gurgaon's Shikohpur, which he had sold to realty major DLF, was valid. "The sale was a matter between private parties. No fake papers were submitted to the department," said a department spokesman.
Skylight, Khemka had alleged, had acquired the land title and a commercial colony licence through "bogus transactions" to which the department had turned a blind eye.
With the land title and the LoI under its belt, Skylight made a collaboration agreement with DLF in August 2008 and received huge amounts as advance or interest-free loan from the realty major, Khemka had said.
In fact, when it got the government's letter of intent (LoI) for colony licence, Skylight was a newly registered company with a paid-up capital of Rs1 lakh and comprised only two shareholders - Vadra and his mother Maureen.
The sale deed and mutation by which Skylight Hospitality became the owner of Shikohpur land is valid even today and nobody has challenged it till date, the Haryana government contended. The committee did not find anything wrong in grant of license or its renewal for the particular piece of land.
Regarding the committee's observation that he did not have the power to question the land deal, he said it was "grossly misplaced"."The director, consolidation of holdings has been delegated the powers under section 42 of the Consolidation Act. He exercises revisionary jurisdiction to correct any illegality or impropriety," Khemka wrote.