HC unveils graft in land allotments, misuse by IAS, IPS officers

The court held that the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority had allotted land to the Sumangalam (Bodakdev) Co-operative Housing Society without an application, the officers had divided the land in bigger plots than allowed under rules, flats and commercial buildings had been raised on plots meant for residential houses, and officers had made false affidavits to get plots.

It asked the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to submit a report within 15 days, indicating what action he proposed to take against officers who had filed false affidavits.

The society consists of 54 IAS and IPS officers, both serving and retired, including Chief Secretary L N S Mukundan, former Chief Secretaries H K Khan and K V Harihardas, DDA Vice-Chairman P K Ghosh, former DGPs K V Joseph and S N Sinha, several officers of the rank of Principal Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary and senior police officers.

The judges observed that such high-ranking officers were expected to set an example for others to follow, and act in accordance with the law, but they had acted contrary to law.

The court had initiated proceedings in the matter on its own when somebody sent it a photocopy of the entire government record of the case. The matter is now listed for November 27.

Interestingly, AUDA took the decision to allot more than 20,000 sq metre land, located on the posh Drive-In Road of Ahmedabad, at a time when A Prasad, a member of the society, was AUDA chairman. The society showed a membership of 77, but the land was divided among 54 persons. Of these, 27 members were taken into the society without following procedure. The court found that 17 society members also owned plots in Gandhinagar.

The high court directed AUDA to seal at once all unoccupied premises and seal premises which are being wrongly used for commercial purpose if such use was not stopped by the owners in 30 days (for which AUDA had given them notices on November 2 after the court proceedings began). AUDA was asked to inspect the buildings under construction and inform the court about the nature of construction.

Tracing the history of the society, the court mentioned several instances to demonstrate how rules were bent or decisions taken without authority. It noted that only 14 buildings had been constructed and only one was actually being used by the allottee for living. In three cases, two plots had been joined to construct one building. Building use permission had been taken for only three premises.

Referring to a detailed report submitted by the counsel for the society, listing out the present occupiers — banks, restaurant, nursery school, offices — the court said that the details, if real, were “shocking”.

The court held that AUDA could not permit commercial use of the premises without changing the development plan. Additional Advocate General S N Shelat had told the court that AUDA had no authority to allow change of use, the judges noted, and disagreed with the argument of counsel for two officers that, in a residential zone, banks, club houses were permitted.

Noting that some of the members had transferred their plots, the court said such transfers were illegal. The court also said that the land obtained through the co-operative society could not be used for profiteering. It noted that way back in 1991, when AUDA decision to allot land was challenged in a petition, the society had filed an affidavit that the land would be used only for residential purposes. The court had rejected that petition. Had the society then said stated that its members wanted to use the land for commercial purposes, the court may have taken a different view, the judges said.