VB junked scam, but ED smells a rat
Central agency’s chargesheet, filed days before vigilance’s closure report in June, flags several wrongdoings
JALANDHAR: The chargesheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the alleged multi-crore land scam in Hoshiarpur has flagged several wrongdoings even as the Punjab vigilance bureau in its closure report in the case gave clean chit to all the accused.
The ED challan, filed in a special PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) court in Jalandhar on June 6, says the accused got compensation from the government by claiming their land to be commercial and residential, though it was actually agricultural.
The filing of the ED chargesheet has not been reported so far. A total of ₹58 crore was paid in excess to the private parties by wrongly calculating the amount of compensation on residential/ commercial rates, the VB’S firstinformation report (FIR) in the case says.
The central agency has named former councillor Harpinder Singh Gill, ex-district co-operative bank chairman Satwinderpal Singh Dhatt, former market committee chairman Avtar Singh Johal, Akali leaders, besides local businessman Parteek Gupta, his father Pardeep Gupta and one Jaswinderpal Singh as the main accused in the chargesheet.
It also says Parteek and Jaswinderpal had recorded a statement under Section 50 of the
PMLA, 2002, saying they carried out civil and other construction works on the land under acquisition.
“It can be easily construed that their intention was to get the type of land changed in government records and claim higher compensation in connivance with government officials, including (the then) sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) Anand Sagar Sharma. They succeeded in their motive and consequently received exorbitant compensation which was more than ten times the amount they invested,” the chargesheet reads.
The challan also cites the Union ministry of road transport and highways’ December 12, 2017, guidelines stating while giving compensation the nature of land has to be taken as recorded in the revenue papers on the day of publication of the Section 3(A) notification. “For instance, if some landowner has constructed a factory or a residential building without obtaining change of land use (CLU), they cannot take the benefit of such land as industrial or residential,” it says.
In this case, while awarding the compensation, the agriculture land was considered as residential and excess compensation was awarded to private parties it says.
“This proves that (the then) sub-divisional magistrate Anand Sagar Sharma showed undue favours to these private persons (Gill, Dhatt, Johal, Akali leaders, Parteek and Pardeep Gupta, and Jaswinderpal),” he said. The chargeheet, however, does not mention Sharma as an accused.
WHISTLEBLOWER RAISES QUESTIONS
Hoshiarpur-based RTI activist Rajiv Vashisht, the whistleblower in the case, said it was surprising that the vigilance filed a closure report a few days after the ED charge-sheet was submitted. “The vigilance should have waited for more time. The ED must probe whether the land in question was actually required for the road.”
When contacted, Anand Sagar Sharma (now Amloh SDM) refused to comment on his name finding a mention in the ED chargesheet, saying the matter was sub-judice. Later, he called back to claim there is no mention of his name in the document.
On September 3, the special judge (PMLA) issued arrest warrants against councillor Gill, Dhatt, Johal and Parteek, his father Pardeep and Jaswinderpal to face trial for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA, 2002.
The ED has also moved an application in the court of additional district and sessions judge, Ludhiana, to transfer the case to the special PMLA court, Jalandhar. The next hearing in the Ludhiana court is on November 27, while in PMLA court, Jalandhar, is on November 30.
HOW DID THE PROBE BEGIN
After Hindustan Times reported the alleged scam in June 2016, the then chief minister Parkash Singh Badal ordered a vigilance probe headed by inspector general of police (IGP) Shive Kumar Verma. A case was registered against 11 persons on February 10, 2017. The FIR claimed the SAD leaders and the SDM (Anand Sagar Sharma) were hand in glove with each other and received hefty money by changing the nature of the land by showing “fake” residential colonies after “3 (D) notification”.
The report of the Punjab and Haryana High Court-constituted HN Sahu commission submitted on May 15, 2017, concluded that the competent authority for land acquisition-cum-hoshiarpur SDM announced the award on the basis of the nature of land and average sale deeds of plots for residential and commercial properties at time of passing the award.
Treating the commission’s findings as base, the VB ordered formation of another SIT led by an SSP rank officer that filed closure report in the case, giving clean chit to all the accused.
ED IN ITS PROBE SAYS THEN SDM GAVE UNDUE FAVOUR TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, BUT DOES NOT NAME HIM AS ACCUSED IN CHALLAN
“No forgery was committed by anyone while purchasing the land. During the investigation, the role of the suspects was probed but no evidence of bribery was found. Therefore, no criminality is involved on part of the accused,” the closure report reads.