M A I N   N E W S

Haryana Town Planning head takes on Khemka
Writes to Chief Secy on cancellation of mutation
Yoginder Gupta/TNS

Chandigarh, October 17
Director-General of the Haryana Town and Country Planning Department TC Gupta has taken umbrage to certain observations made by Ashok Khemka, former Director-General, Consolidation, in his order cancelling the mutation of the sale deed between Robert Vadra’s company, Sky Light Hospitality Private Limited, and the DLF Universal regarding 3.531 acres in Gurgaon district on October 15.

In a strongly worded letter (a copy of which is with The Tribune) written to the Chief Secretary today, an angry Gupta said the “observations are not only uncalled for but either a product of a biased mind or an ignorant officer who does not know law or does not want to know the applicable laws for reasons best known to him”.

The controversy arose when Khemka, after his transfer on October 11, cancelled the mutation of the land sold by Vadra’s company to the DLF on October 15 before he relinquished the charge.

In the cancellation order, Khemka observed that the Town and Country Planning Department should not have renewed the LOI/licence granted to the vendor when a major portion of the consideration money had already been paid to it by the DLF.

Taking exception to the advice given by Khemka in his order to Gupta’s department not to accord sale permission or issue LOI/CLU in violation of the Consolidation Act or the Land Ceiling Act “at least in the future”, Gupta wrote that the advice “is totally uncalled for, which he (Khemka) is not competent to issue”.

“He (Khemka) has misunderstood in principle approval to transfer the licence and has issued an advisory as if he is the only custodian of law. If he had asked our department to clarify the issues, he could have been educated about the correct provisions of law. “This action of issuing an advisory, rather I would call it interference, is totally uncalled for and against administrative propriety,” Gupta said.

Gupta requested the Chief Secretary to refer his letter to the three-member committee headed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management and Consolidation, constituted by the state government to go into the allegations levelled by Khemka. “If the committee comes to the conclusion that this department has acted in accordance with the rules while granting LOI/licence to Skylight Hospitality, renewal of the licence and granted in-principle approval for transferring the licence, then the Department of Consolidation of Land Holdings and Land Records should apologise for its observations and withdraw them and action should be taken against the officer who has levelled unfounded allegations against the working of the department, which has a demoralising effect on other officers,” Gupta prayed to the Chief Secretary.

When contacted for his comments on Gupta’s letter, Khemka said he was busy and would call later. He did not call back. Gupta alleged that Khemka’s order of October 15 contained factual inaccuracies, “vitiated by legal infirmities and have been passed in total disregard of administrative propriety.”

Among the observations found objectionable by Gupta, Khemka had written that “it is not known what made the Town and Country Planning Department to renew the LOI/licence on January 18, 2011 in favour of the vendor (Sky Light Hospitality), when 86.2 per cent of the total sale consideration was paid to him by October 7, 2009 i.e. 15 months before the date of renewal of the LOI/licence. If the vendor suppressed the material fact that he has entered into a sale agreement of the impugned property with the DLF…then the department ought to be taking action against the vendor for suppressing the material fact. On the contrary, had the vendor informed the department about his entering into an agreement to sell on or before June 6, 2008, with the DLF, it is unfathomable how the department could renew the LOI/licence on January 18, 2011 in favour of the vendor who had ex-facie entered into an agreement to sell within 65 days of the issue of the first LOI/licence.”

Gupta said these observations showed lack of knowledge on the part of the officer not only about the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975…but also about the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, which the officer (Khemka), in the capacity of Inspector-General of Registration, was supposed to know. He pointed out that it was a well-known legal position that the agreement to sell, with or without any consideration, did not convey any title in favour of the vendee. Before the execution of the sale deed, the licence could be renewed only in the name of the entity, which was the owner of the land on the date of the renewal.

Gupta also challenged Khemka’s contention made in the order that all property under consolidation vested in the government after the notification under Section 14(1) of the Consolidation Act till re-partition. Khemka had further written that the Town and Country Planning Department’s permission to sell the impugned property on April 3, 2012 fell foul of Section 30 of the Consolidation Act.

Describing Khemka’s contention as factually incorrect, Gupta said there was no provision in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, which said that all property under consolidation vested in the government. He said mere notification of consolidation could not take away the legal right of the ownership of landowners. He said the Consolidation Act applied only to the agriculture land while the impugned land had already come in urbanisable area and was part of the commercial zone of Sector 83 of Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex Plan-2021 notified on February 5, 2007. Therefore, the impugned land was not “land” as defined under Section 2 of the Act.

What khemka says All property under consolidation vests in the government. The Town and Country Planning Department's permission to sell the impugned property on April 3, 2012 falls foul of Section 30 of the Consolidation Act — Ashok Khemka, ex-DG, Consolidation TC Gupta’s take There is no provision in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, that says all property under consolidation vests in the government. Mere notification of consolidation cannot take away the legal right of the ownership of the landowners and I have not come across any provision in the 1948 Act to this effect…Section 42 of the 1948 Act, which gives power to the state to examine any order…under this Act, specifically says that no order can be reversed without hearing the parties concerned. Khemka had got absolutely no legal authority to pass the October-15 order without hearing all parties concerned, including my department, against which adverse observations have been made — TC Gupta, Director-General, Haryana Town and Country Planning Department