Haryana CM’s aunt gained from land deal: Ashok Khemka's report

NEW DELHI: A report filed by Haryana IAS officer Ashok Khemka claims to have detected a "glaring case of misappropriation of 734 acres of panchayat land" worth "several crores" by influential people — including the present chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda's aunt — in village Ankhir of Faridabad district, abutting the HUDA Gymkhana Club, along the Surajkund-Badkhal road.

The report adds that one of the alleged beneficiaries from the second partition of the panchayat land was "Smt Krishna Kanta, mother of Shri Praveen Kumar, IAS, who was the deputy commissioner of Faridabad at that time. Smt Krishna Kanta is reported to be the paternal aunt of the present CM."

The area referred to by Khemka's report is fast emerging as an upscale enclave of Faridabad, connected to Delhi not by the congested National Highway No. 2, but by a straight road to south Delhi, via Charmwood Village and the Tughlakabad shooting range.

When contacted, Khemka refused to discuss his report. Haryana officials, too, declined to go on record, but senior government sources insisted that Krishna Kanta was only a distant relative of chief minister Hooda. She belonged to Rohtak, the CM's home town, they added.

'Deputy commissioner should have protected rural land'

The report filed by IAS officer Ashok Khemka has alleged that "VVIPs" gained land worth crores after panchayat land was partitioned to favour a few. It says: "Sector 21 of Faridabad is part of Ankhir estate and by virtue of this partition; some VVIPs managed to corner prime specific khasra numbers worth several crores, abutting the main roads from HUDA Gymkhana Club of Sector 21 to Surajkund and Badkhal Lake."

In his report, Khemka claims that he referred the finding to the financial commissioner (revenue) Krishna Mohan, who was also one of the three members of a committee that was set up on October 19, 2012, to look into allegations against Khemka. There is no indication in Khemka's report that Mohan acted on the recommendation.

"The case was also reported to the principal secretary of the development & panchayats department so that effective steps are taken to protect the interests of the gram panchayat," Khemka says in his report.

Khemka's report points out that as deputy commissioner it was the duty of Praveen Kumar to protect the gram panchayat's interests in the partition proceedings before his subordinate revenue officer. When contacted, Kumar said there was no irregularity in the partition. He added that his mother had purchased the land in 2005 and it was not panchayat land.