The State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has registered two corruption cases against two retired Indian Administrative Service officers and three others for allegedly allotting prime urban plots in Gurugram under the oustee quota in violation of Punjab and Haryana High Court orders and adverse legal counsel. The cases name former Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran chief administrator D Suresh and former administrator headquarters Girish Kumar, alongside District Attorney Anil Kumar Aggarwal, HSVP Superintendent Nitin Hooda, and private beneficiaries. Investigators stated that the disputed allocations were pushed through using decisions of the District Litigation Committee even after the claims had been formally turned down by the development authority and dismissed by the High Court.
First allotment sanctioned days after adverse High Court verdict
The initial case centers on an application filed in 1994 by Gurugram resident Shyam Singh, who sought a four-marla plot under the oustee category. Although a preliminary draw of lots was conducted in March 1998, other shareholders raised formal objections, and Singh failed to produce the mandatory no-objection certificates from co-sharers. Singh approached the High Court in 2017 seeking relief. In June 2018, the then chief administrator informed the estate officer that, in accordance with advice from the district attorney, the allotment could not proceed and the earlier draw was liable to be cancelled.
The estate officer subsequently submitted before the High Court that the applicant held no legitimate claim, following which the court declined to provide relief and ultimately ruled in favour of the HSVP on July 9, 2019. However, the vigilance bureau found that barely three days after the court decision, Superintendent Nitin Hooda initiated a recommendation for the allotment, relying on a resolution passed by the District Litigation Committee headed by D Suresh on May 29, 2019. Consequently, Plot Number 257A in Sector 39 was allotted to Singh on August 7, 2019, who later applied to transfer the property to Sita Rani Singla. The bureau registered an FIR on September 2, invoking provisions concerning cheating, breach of trust, document falsification, criminal conspiracy, and corruption.
Second site allotted in excess of eligible land size
The second inquiry involves an application submitted in 1994 by Jagdish Chander Gupta for Plot Number 833A in Sector 40. Gupta could not provide the required no-objection certificates from other shareholders before passing away in 2015, after which his wife Subhash Rani pursued the claim. The estate officer dismissed the petition in 2016, and the then administrator for Gurugram, Yashpal Yadav, issued a formal rejection order in April 2017. The High Court similarly declined to intervene in 2018.
Despite these concurrent rejections, Hooda processed a fresh recommendation in May 2019 by citing the District Litigation Committee. The vigilance bureau noted that the committee, presided over by D Suresh, completely bypassed the standing order recorded by Yadav. The investigation also revealed that while the applicant was entitled to only 200 square metres, an expanded plot measuring 220 square metres was sanctioned and later sold to Nitin Bansal. A separate case was registered in this connection on August 26.
Defence cites quasi-judicial protection as agency examines files
While D Suresh could not be contacted for comments, a senior administrative officer associated with him defended the actions, contending that the vigilance inquiries ran counter to administrative guidelines formulated by the Personnel Department and instructions issued by the Chief Secretary. The officer maintained that the committee decisions constituted quasi-judicial proceedings shielded under the Judges Protection Act, asserting that the state exchequer incurred no financial loss.
The anti-corruption bureau is reviewing files, legal recommendations, litigation committee minutes, and court verdicts across both allotments. Officials stated that final legal outcomes will depend on evidence gathered during the ongoing probe.
