The ED also sought directions for HSIIDC to confirm the exact area of land released after the Section 6 notification since the corporation mentions 70.49 acres of released land in its affidavit.(HT Photo)
The ED also sought directions for HSIIDC to confirm the exact area of land released after the Section 6 notification since the corporation mentions 70.49 acres of released land in its affidavit.(HT Photo)

Manesar land scam:ED questions Haryana government silence on 268 acres

The agency said that under the garb of ‘change of beneficial ownership’, transferees had accrued undue benefits
Hindustan Times/Chandigarh | By Hitender Rao, Chandigarh
UPDATED ON NOV 22, 2020 01:01 AM IST

Questioning the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation’s (HSIIDC’s) ‘conspicuous silence’ on 268 acres of Manesar land, the enforcement directorate (ED), which is probing the land scam, has sought details of the land deals.

The Haryana government had not announced deemed award for 268 acres, which were part of the 688 acres land under probe. Setting aside the Congress regime’s August 24, 2007 decision to drop acquisition proceedings for 688 acres of land in Manesar and adjoining villages, the Supreme Court had in 2018 said an award is deemed to have been passed on August 26, 2007 with respect to lands that were covered by declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and which were transferred by landholders between August 27, 2004 and January 29, 2010.

In its November 20 reply filed before the SC, the ED said the HSIIDC’s affidavit focused only on 420 acres despite the SC’s ruling.

‘Need to examine transactions’

The agency said that under the garb of ‘change of beneficial ownership’, transferees had accrued undue benefits. “All such transactions are required to be examined as they led to generation of proceeds of crime,” the ED said.

In its plea before the apex court, the ED said that HSIIDC should be directed to not grant any refund to different entities without obtaining a no objection certificate from them.

‘In principle land release, not actual’

“The HSIIDC in its affidavit said land of RP Estates and Subros Ltd formed part of the Section 6 notification and land of Subros was released in principle by state government based on the decision of the Ministers’ Committee,” the ED said.

“In the case of Subros Ltd, the release was granted in principle and was not an actual approval. Thus, it appears the said portions of land are part of the 268 acres, details of which are being requested. It is submitted that detailed investigation with regard to current ownership, change in ownership of land and any other entity owning the land, which is under Section 6, is essential to determine the undue benefits derived,’’ the ED said.

‘Unjust enrichment is proceed of crime’

The ED also sought directions for HSIIDC to confirm the exact area of land released after the Section 6 notification since the corporation mentions 70.49 acres of released land in its affidavit: “Mere land release after Section 6 did not entitle the entities to enjoy benefits as the apex court had directed that an award is deemed to have been passed in 2007 in respect of lands covered by Section 6 declaration. It is to be examined and investigated what all benefits stand to be derived by way of defying the schedule offence and generation of proceeds of crime gained by middlemen and ultimate gainers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,” said the ED.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Close
SHARE
Story Saved
OPEN APP