Gurgaon Court Mandates Criminal Investigation Into Decades-Old Land Compensation Dispute
In a significant judicial development, a local court in Gurgaon has ordered a comprehensive criminal investigation into a perplexing land acquisition compensation case that has remained unresolved for more than two decades. The court's directive comes amid serious allegations that beneficiaries never received their rightful payments, despite official government records asserting complete disbursement over twenty-four years ago.
Court Directs FIR Registration and SIT Formation
Dr. Gagan Geet Kaur, the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Gurgaon, issued these crucial orders while hearing an application filed by Murti Devi and other claimants. The court explicitly directed the Commissioner of Police in Gurgaon to register a First Information Report (FIR) and establish a Special Investigating Team (SIT) to thoroughly probe the long-standing compensation discrepancy.
"This court is left with no other option except to send the matter to Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, with a direction to get register an FIR in the matter and to get probed the matter by constituting SIT so that truth comes out and the matter be taken to logical end," the court stated in its official order.
Compensation Amount and Disbursement Discrepancies
The case centers around a compensation amount of Rs 37.78 lakh for acquired land, which was allegedly deposited through cheque number 681461 dated December 1, 2000. According to official affidavits from the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and Bank Manager, this cheque was converted into six demand drafts and subsequently disbursed to the beneficiaries.
However, the claimants, who have pursued multiple rounds of litigation up to the High Court level, maintain they have never received any payment whatsoever. This fundamental contradiction prompted the court to question how and to whom the compensation was actually disbursed if not to the legitimate claimants.
Critical Examination Reveals Documentation Gaps
After meticulously examining the entire case record, the court made several alarming observations:
- There is absolutely no mention in any court file of payment being made through cheque, demand draft, or any other financial instrument
- No documentation exists showing the compensation was either deposited with the court or released through any judicial order
- Officials involved in the case failed to provide satisfactory explanations for these glaring omissions
The court particularly noted that an affidavit dated February 6 from the bank manager, submitted through legal counsel, conspicuously failed to disclose crucial information about who withdrew the compensation funds and when this withdrawal occurred.
Bank's Explanation Deemed "Evasive and Vague"
Judge Kaur strongly criticized the bank's justification for not revealing the beneficiary's name, citing the merger of OBC Bank with Punjab National Bank (PNB) as insufficient grounds for withholding this critical information. The court characterized this explanation as "very evasive and vague" and emphasized that it necessitated a thorough investigation.
Procedural Irregularities Raise Serious Doubts
The court highlighted additional procedural anomalies that cast further doubt on the official disbursement narrative:
- During the year 2000, compensation amounts were typically deposited directly into government treasuries as standard procedure
- In this specific case, the payment deviated from established protocol by being converted from a cheque into six separate demand drafts
- Despite claims of disbursement, the bank maintains no records identifying who actually received these demand drafts
Documentation Anomalies and Suspicious Records
Further examination revealed multiple "doubtful" discrepancies in official documentation, including:
- Evidence of overwriting in dispatch registers
- Blue-ink entries appearing amidst records predominantly maintained in black pen
- Inconsistent reference numbers that failed to correspond with court file documentation
These irregularities collectively prompted the court to question the veracity of the entire disbursement process and ultimately led to the decision to mandate a criminal investigation through the formation of a Special Investigating Team.
The case represents a significant judicial intervention in a long-standing administrative dispute, highlighting the court's commitment to uncovering the truth behind compensation disbursement processes that have remained opaque for nearly a quarter-century.
