Rs 200 crore Punjab land ‘scam’: 2 IAS officers now central to ED probe

ED sources said the agency is examining the administrative trail of the Change of Land Use (CLU) permissions and subsequent changes to approved layouts of real-estate projects under investigation.

“Verma’s questioning is expected to cover the same administrative chain, including decisions relating to CLU permissions, modifications to approved layouts and the action taken by the Housing and Urban Development Department during the period when he was heading it,” said an ED source, adding that the agency is examining whether prescribed procedures were followed in these matters.

On Thursday, when Brar was questioned for the second time in relation to the probe, the agency is learnt to have sought a detailed written response on the partial revocation of the CLU of Suntec City and changes made to the approved layout of the Altus Space Builders project. Investigators also sought an explanation regarding the alleged failure of the department to act despite complaints over purported forged landowner consent letters.

The agency is also examining whether alleged changes in land use and project layouts benefited private developers.

Why Brar and Verma?

Brar, a 2007-batch IAS officer, was Director, Town and Country Planning (TCP) in 2024, when the Suntec City project received the modified CLU approval.

The agency’s questions are, therefore, focused on the official records and decisions handled during her tenure as the director of the TCP.

Verma was heading the Housing and Urban Development Department during the period being examined by the ED.

“For now, the questioning of Verma and Brar is focused on the official records and decisions connected with the projects under investigation. The ED’s proceedings against the two officers are part of an ongoing investigation. Their being summoned or questioned does not, by itself, establish criminal liability or wrongdoing on their part,” said an ED source.

The Suntec City case

The case originated with complaints by landowners of Palheri village in Mohali in 2020. One of the complainants was Karamjit Singh, who alleged that his land had been included in a list showing consent for the development without his approval. The subsequent police inquiry examined allegations of forged signatures and thumb impressions of landowners.

An FIR was registered at the Mullanpur police station in Punjab in November 2022 against office-bearers of the Indian Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd. The ED’s money-laundering case is based on this underlying criminal case. The agency has alleged that forged consent letters were used to obtain CLUs covering 108.58 acres of agricultural land for residential and commercial development.

The ED has since widened the investigation to the approval and financial trail surrounding Suntec City and related real-estate projects, including Altus Space Builders. It filed a nearly 3,500-page prosecution complaint before the special PMLA court in Mohali in July and has alleged proceeds of crime of around Rs 348 crore. Realtor Ajay Sehgal, associated with the Indian Cooperative Housing Building Society, was arrested by the agency in May.

The questionnaire

The ED is learnt to have prepared a list of questions for the two officers. These are –

• Were the consent letters submitted by landowners genuine, who verified their authenticity, and what procedure was followed to establish that the landowners had actually given their consent?
• How were the CLU applications scrutinised, what documents were considered before granting the permissions, and on what basis were the modified CLUs approved?
• What changes were subsequently made to the approved layouts, including the Altus project, who approved these modifications, and whether they were in accordance with the applicable rules?
• What action was taken after complaints were received alleging that landowners’ consent documents had been forged, when were the complaints received, who examined them, and why was further action, if any, not taken?
• What role did the administrative approvals play in the projects? Were the officers aware of any financial transactions linked to the approvals or modifications, and how do these decisions connect to the alleged proceeds of crime being investigated by the ED?