Gurugram land release case: What is the CBI probe against real estate builders, and who are the accused?
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed chargesheets against four more real estate companies and their directors in the alleged Gurugram land release scam case, taking the total number of builders chargesheeted in the case to six.
The agency has accused the companies and their officials of criminal conspiracy and cheating, alleging that land acquired for a public purpose was released to private colonisers in an allegedly malafide manner to extend undue benefits.
According to The Tribune, the four companies named in the latest chargesheets are RS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd, DSS Infrastructure Pvt Ltd and HS Realty Pvt Ltd. Their owners and officials have also been named as accused.
The land under investigation is spread across eight villages — Nangli Umarpur, Ghata, Tigra, Ulahwas, Kadarpur, Maidwas, Badshahpur and Bahrampur — covering Sectors 58–63 and 65–67 of Gurugram, the news outlet stated.
The CBI has named Roop Kumar Bansal in the chargesheet against RS Infrastructure. Hirdesh Bedi and Ashok Kumar Pandey have been named in the case against Ansal Properties, while Dalbir Singh, Sandeep Hooda and Inder Mohan Arora figure in the DSS Infrastructure chargesheet. Ram Avtar Yadav has been named in the chargesheet against HS Realty, the news outlet said.
The chargesheets are currently under scrutiny by the CBI Special Court, with the next hearing scheduled for December 11.
What is the Gurugram land release case?
The Supreme Court ordered a CBI investigation into the matter on November 1, 2017. The agency registered an FIR in 2019, alleging that the land acquisition process was part of a criminal conspiracy involving officials and private colonisers.
According to the CBI’s FIR, the Haryana government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on June 2, 2009, to acquire 1,417.07 acres of land. The stated purpose was to create a land bank for the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).
However, the agency alleged that the acquisition process was designed to put pressure on landowners to sell their properties to private colonisers at lower prices.
Although a subsequent notification under Section 6 covered 850.10 acres, the final acquisition award was issued for only 85.95 acres. The remaining land was not acquired, with authorities citing 153 scattered land pockets that were difficult to utilise.
The CBI alleged that the acquisition was deliberately abandoned and that land was subsequently released to private colonisers despite deficiencies in their licence applications. These allegedly included issues involving land titles, layout plans, scrutiny fees and backdated collaboration agreements.
The agency further alleged that the release of land was intended to confer undue benefits on private real estate companies.
Which builders have been chargesheeted?
According to The Tribune, the CBI has so far filed chargesheets against six real estate companies in the case. The latest four chargesheets name the following companies and individuals:
The other two companies against which chargesheets were filed in 2021 are:
1. Commander Realtors: The company was named in the earlier round of chargesheets filed by the CBI.
2. Bharma City Pvt Ltd: The company was also chargesheeted in 2021.
The CBI had additionally named former Chief Town Planner JS Redhu, former Assistant Town Planner Satish Kumar Arora, former Deputy Superintendent Rajbir Singh and Amit Katyal, Director of Krrish Buildtech (now Brahma City), in the 2021 chargesheets.
Supplementary chargesheets in those cases are still awaited.
What is the status of Bhupinder Singh Hooda’s role?
Former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and former HUDA Chief Administrator and Town and Country Planning Director Trilok Chand Gupta were also named as accused in the CBI FIR.
However, the agency has not filed chargesheets against the two so far.
The FIR had named 15 firms as accused, but chargesheets have been filed against only six companies to date.
