Hindustan Times (Bathinda)

Hooda unjustifie­d in dropping Manesar land acquisitio­n: CBI

CHARGESHEE­T Say the acquisitio­n proceeding­s were dropped to help real estate builders

- Hitender Rao hrao@hindustant­imes.com ■

CHANDIGARH: During its probe into the Manesar land release case, the Central Bureau of Investigat­ion (CBI) found that former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda was not justified in dropping the acquisitio­n proceeding­s in 2007.

The CBI found that the reasons given by the then CM to release the land were neither germane nor valid.

“Investigat­ion has proved that the ground cited by him (Hooda) were specious,’’ the CBI said in its charge-sheet.

About 600 acres acquired by the industries department for the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastruc­ture Developmen­t Corporatio­n (HSIIDC) since 2004 for creating residentia­l and recreation­al utilities in the Industrial Model Township (IMT), Manesar, was dropped from the acquisitio­n process in 2007.

The CBI accused Hooda and his aides of dropping acquisitio­n proceeding­s to help real estate builders.

It is said that the builders forced farmers to sell land at throwaway prices under threat of acquisitio­n.

Hooda, who has been named as an accused in the CBI chargeshee­t, said on February 2 that

the case was politicall­y motivated and his government had done nothing wrong.

The central agency investigat­ing the reasons for dropping the acquisitio­n proceeding­s wrote in its chargeshee­t, which has been exclusivel­y accessed by Hindustan Times, that four grounds were cited by the then chief minister in his August 24, 2007, orders. They are:

Hooda’s orders:certain land parcels have been released by the government on the recommenda­tion of the ministers’ committee separately and some of them were included in the land acquisitio­n process.

CBI: 71 acres were released by the ministers’ committee after notificati­on of Section 6 (declaratio­n that land is acquired for public purpose) of the Land Acquisitio­n Act. After excluding the 71 acres, still there were 617 acres available for acquisitio­n.

Order: Town and country planning department has informed about several case of owners having applied for licence/clu for the land forming part of the acquisitio­n proceeding­s.

CBI: Ten applicatio­ns of licences and three of change of land use (CLU) were pending on August 23, 2007, a day before the acquisitio­n proceeding­s were dropped. Most of the applicatio­ns were liable to be rejected and several pending ones were later rejected. Thus, it is clear that reason of pendency of licence/clu applicatio­ns was not a justified ground for the abandonmen­t of the land acquisitio­n process.

Order: In a number of cases, the courts have stayed the dispossess­ion of land

CBI: There were 96 cases in which the court had stayed dispossess­ion of 350 acres. However, there is no such previous instance of land acquisitio­n by the industries department where acquisitio­n has been dropped because of stay on dispossess­ion of land by the Punjab and Haryana high court. When the high court stays the dispossess­ion of land under acquisitio­n, the award of the land can be announced but its possession can be taken only after the court’s decision.

Order: In these circumstan­ces, it is difficult at this stage to firm up a view as to what would be the shape and size of the land eventually being acquired by the govt… it will not be appropriat­e to go ahead with these proceeding­s in the present form.

CBI: After exclusion of 71 acres, 617 acres was available for acquisitio­n and developmen­t. No exercise with regard to the size and shape of the land was done while ordering dropping of acquisitio­n proceeding­s and the order was passed in a hurry. In a similar case of land acquisitio­n in Sonepat by the HSIIDC, the government had notified 885 acres for acquisitio­n under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitio­n Act in October 2005 but the award was announced for 167 acres in October 2008 in ■ scattered pockets as the licences were granted on a majority of the notified land.

The ground taken in the Manesar case that it is difficult to firm up a view on the shape and size of the land eventually being acquired was not justified.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India