Crime
Branch Inquiry into Ghangapatna Land scam of Odisha at Crossroad !
Innocent
Tribals (seller) were arrested, but the high-profile Buyers (politicians) were
protected by Crime Branch.
Beauty
of Crime Branch Inquiry
1. Background of Ghangapatna Land Scam
In August, 2014, the locals of
Ghangapatna, a village located outskirt of Bhubaneswar about 15 kms away from state secretariat of Odisha alleged that huge acres of tribal land
had been illegally
acquired by late Kalpataru Das and his MLA Son Pranab
Balabantaray and Sri K.V.Singhdeo, BJP MLA in name of her daughter and
many powerful people connected with Ruling party Biju Janata Dal in Ghangapatana area under jurisdiction of Tahasildar,
Bhubaneswar. After this expose and subsequent media coverage, all the opposition political parties and Civil
Society Groups organised protest dharana
demanding CBI inquiry into this scam. It is popularly
known as infamous Ghangapatna land Scam in Odisha. In the midst
of protest, to pacify
the rising public anger
against the Govt.
Chief Minister declared that
Crime Branch would
conduct inquiry into it
in the month of August, 2014. Just after few days,
the Govt. declared that 70 acres of land of Ghangapatna
returned back to Govt. fold.
2. Use of RTI – A Tool
to verify authenticity of
information disseminated by Govt.
On 9.9.2014., the Crime Branch lodged complaint
(Case No.
22 dated 9.9.2014) , registered under
section 120(B)/420/467/468/471 IPC
and started inquiry
into it. After few
days , it was reported in media
that Crime Branch had returned back all land
to Govt. khata. To
verify the authenticity of information, two RTI Applications dt. 19.9.14
and 31.12.14 were submitted to the PIO, Office of
Revenue and Disaster Management, Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar seeking
information about details of Ghangapatana land returned back to Govt. khata. The information sought
for is as follows.
A. Details of
allegation made for illegally occupying the Ghangapatna land under Khurda
district.
B. Name of
the persons or institutions or organizations who have illegally occupied land
and quantity of land occupied by them.
C. Copy of
documents which contain about the land (quantity of land) returned back to
Govt. and name of the institutions / persons from whose
land was returned back with quantity
of land following which the Govt. has
declared .
D. Information
about laws which were followed by the Government to get the land returned back
to Govt.
The
PIO forwarded both the RTI Applications to the PIO, office of Collector, Khurda which
was eventually forwarded
to the PIO, office of Tahasildar
, Bhubaneswar to supply the
information. On denial of
information by the PIO, office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar , Second Appeal
cases were filed in the
office of Odisha Information Commission which were registered
as SA Case
No. 284/15 and SA Case No. 1655/2015.
3. Hearing of SA petitions
by Sashi Prava Bindhani, SIC and
Mockery of Odisha
bureaucracy with tacit
support from the Commissioner
– An
Interesting story
After two years, the hearing
of both the
Second Appeal petitions SA No.
284/15 and SA No. 1655/2015 was
started by Mrs. Sashi Prava Bindhani, Odisha Information
Commissioner from 9.2.17. The
Commission heard the
case twelve times ( within period of one
and half year ) on 9.2.2017,
14.7.2017, 16.8.2017, 8.9.2017, 3.10.2017,
29.1.2018, 9.2.2018, 16.4.2018, 15.5.18,
26.7.18, 6.9.2018 ( date of disposal). The reason behind
fixing so many dates
for hearing of the cases is
that though the
Commission repeatedly issued notice
to the PIO, office of Tahasildar
, Bhubaneswar, he /she neither
responded the Commission nor filed any submission
in respect of compliance
to RTI Application nor cared to the
Commission to appear in the hearing.
Then, Mrs. Bindhani
issued notice five times
to ADM, Khurda under
Odisha Information Commission (
appeal procedure) Rules, 2006 to conduct
an inquiry into it and sought
information from the PIO,
Tahasildar. Astonishingly, ADM did not respond the Commission. Mrs.
Bindhani could not do
anything, though the Commission has ample
power to take legal
action against them. It
is also very interesting
to note here that the PIO, office
of Collector, Khurda submitted to
the Commission that though office of Collector
issued direction 13 times within period of one year
from 5.5.2017 to 5.4.2018 to
Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar to provide
information along with copy marked
to Commission, the office
of Tahasildar simply continued
to ignore the
order of the Collector, Khurda. The
Collector did not
take any action against him
but continued to send
reminder time and again
to provide information.
A simple question may
haunt mind of readers how a mere
Tahasildar dared to
ignore order of the
Commission 10 times and order
of the Collector , Khurdha 13
times.
The answer is very simply. He
was directed from top
not to supply any
information and continue to ignore
order of anybody. Nothing would happen
to him. As I am the appellant , I was closely monitoring
the attitude of Sashi Prava Bindhani innocently and
frequently attending the case
being pretty aware about
character of Sashi Prava Bindhani that she was
desperately waiting to dispose and close
the
case taking plea of the appellant
( Pradip Pradhan) that “ the
appellant is satisfied and no need
to pursue the case
further.” It happened
in this case which will be
presented later on.
4.
Supply of
information by PIO, office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar
After one
year of long silence not even ignoring repeated
notice of the Commission, PIO , office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar supplied
the information on 8.2.18
and 9.5.18 which is
presented below.
a. The
original case records
have been seized by the economic Office wing of the
Odisha crime Branch in connection
with EOW
Case No. 22 dated 9.9.2014. The PIO provided complete seizure list prepared on 10.9.14
and 3.1.15. This list does not
contain any information about name
of the lease holder against whom cancellation of Land lease
case was filed.
b.
The PIO
supplied copy of the Khata No. 614 relating to Mouza : Ghangapatna indicating details of land
reverted back to the Government Khata .
c. The
PIO mentioned that Since
the matter is
under investigation by the EOW, Odisha Crime
Branch, difficulties have been
experienced to provide other
information sought for.
d.
It
means investigation of Crime
branch is going
on since 5 years. In the name
of investigation, Crime
Branch has suppressed the scam
in order to protect land grabbers.
5. Fallacious order
of Commission – a Simple email changed
Couse of hearing leading to
abrupt disposal of the case –
Very Interesting episode
On 6.9.18, Mrs. Sashi Prava Bindhani
heard the case . I was absent and the
PIO was also absent
in the hearing. In the
order of that day, the
Commission has mentioned that the
PIO has sent a letter through e-mail which
was taken on record. But the Commission has not mentioned
any thing content of the
said email which is related
to my case. Even
the Commission has not
supplied this copy
of email in response to RTI Application dt. 22.1.19 filed by
me seeking entire file
and documents of this case.
It is clearly apprehended that this email
influenced Mrs. Bindhani to close
the case. Mrs. Bindhani
started thinking how to close the case.
The Commission hatched conspiracy
putting allegation on appellant (
me ) that “ though
the appellant was
present on 26.7.18, he has neither submitted
any written memorandum nor
any discrepancy chart as per
direction of the Commission on
26.7.18” . In
fact , On 26.7.18., I produced
discrepancy chart to the PIO and
copy to the Commission
copy of which has been
supplied to me by office
of Information Commission to response of my RTI
query dated 22.1.19. Though the Commission
disposed the case on 6.9.2018, but copy of the
order was sent to me
after five months on 25.1.19.
6. Status
of Ghangapatna Land Scam as
revealed from RTI revelation.
a. In the
name of Inquiry , Chief Minister
ensured suppression of investigation into Ghangapatna Land Scam
through Crime Branch. Five years
passed, Crime Branch held up inquiry to
protect land grabbers of
BJD.
b.
The office of
Tahasildar , Bhubaneswar
refused to divulge information on the pretext
that the original
documents has been seized. This is false statement. Tahasildar might have called for all information from Crime Branch and
supplied to me.
c. The
Information Commission
should have ordered for
inquiry whether the Statement
of PIO about seizure
of original document by Crime Branch is
fact or false.
The Commission should have also ordered Tahasildar to bring back all documents
from Crime Branch and supply the same.
As Mrs. Bindhani was instructed to
obstruct supply of
information, she closed
the case without
ensuring it.
d.
Though the PIO, office of Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar continued
to simply ignore the order
of the Commission for one and
half year causing a lot
of harassment to me, the
Commission did not
impose penalty on him
as required under section 20 (1) of the
RTI Act. Mrs. Bindhani’s
tacit support to
erring PIOs has encouraged them
to deny information repeatedly
to Information-seekers.
e.
Information about Ghangapatna land scam still remains mystery.
f.
After long fight
of five years to get
piece of information, I was denied
information by the PIO
which was facilitated by Mrs. Sashi Prava Bindhani,
Information Commissioner
which has been
constituted to protect RTI Act.
The PIO who
did not care to respond
Commission for one year was
made scot-free without
any penalty being imposed on him, though he deserves
to be penalized under
section 20(1) of the
RTI Act. We ,
the tax payers are
paying Rs. 2.5 lakh
per month to Sashi Prava Bindhani to
provide justice to appellant . This
is the justice she
provided to me after
5 years of
long finght to get information. Sashi Prava Bindhani is
not the Commission
to protect RTI
but to protect
corrupt bureaucrats.
7. Complaint filed in Lokayukta, Odisha
With availability of information, I filed
complaint petition dt. 29.8.19 in
the office of Lokayukta , Odisha seeking investigation into
Ghangapatna LAND Scam and find out the reasons for pending
of inquiry in the office of Crime Branch
for five years . Taking cognizance of the case LY Case
No. 289/19 the Lokayukta, Odisha issued
notice to Addl. DG, Crime Branch
to submit detailed report about inquiry into huge Corruption, Irregularities in sale and Purchase of lease land
in Ghangapatna area of Bhubaneswar, Dist -Khurda by 17.10.19 .
a. On 4.11.20.,
the Additional DG, Crime Branch produced the report in the Lokayukta,
Odisha about status of investigation.
The report in toto is presented for the reference of the readers. However the gist of the submission is presented.
As per the submission
of the Crime Branch , Gokarneswar Charitable Trust, represented by
Pranab Balabantaray , BJD MLA had purchased
an area of Ac 5. 240 dcml in Moua-Ghangapatna during the period of 21.2.2009 to 14.7.2010. Out of the above-mentioned land, Ac. 3.00 dec. land have been purchased from first-line purchasers ( purchase of land
from the lessees) and Ac.2.00 from
second line purchasers. And remaining Ac.0.240 dec. land is stitiban land purchased from different people which does not within the purview of investigation. At the time of
purchase of the land by trust, the
land records were in the name of original lessees/ purchasers because
of non-correction of revenue records despite
such orders passed by ADM
during the period
1984-86. Thus the allegation
against Gorkaneswar trust and
its trustee Pranab Balaantaray is yet
to be fully substantiated. However, investigation in the
matter is continuing.
M/S Nivritti Export Private Limited, Director Nivritti Kumari Singhdeo , D/O- Kanak
Bardhan Singhdeo had purchased the land
to the extent of Ac. 7.00 .
Ac.5.00 was purchased under sale
deed from original lessees during the
period of 2007-08. The company
had also purchased Ac.2.00 land
from first line purchasers in two different sale deeds. The allegation against M/S
Nivritti Export Private Limited , its Director
Nivritti Kumari Singhdeo is yet
to be fully substantiated . However, investigation is continuing for
collection of documents and
examination of few more witnesses and final view will be taken
after completion of all aspects of investigations.
The Crime Branch
further submitted referring
letter of Tahasildar ,
Bhubaneswar dt. 17.10.2019 that out of 18 acres
lease land which is under investigation, 16 acres lease land has been restored to Govt. Khata .
This 16 acres of land includes land
purchased by M/S Nivritti
Export Private Limited and Gokarneswar Charitable Trust. The rest
two acres of land is under
the process of restoration to Govt. Khata
b. Following the submission
of the Crime Branch report , I (
the petitioner ) raised
before the Lokayukta the issue
of Non-completion of the investigation by the Crime Branch
even after completion of 6 years and submitted that
Crime Branch had
masterminded suppression of investigation to protect the
main accused. On 16.12.19,
the learned counsel
of the Crime ranch submitted
and prayed for
another six months time to complete
the investigation. The Lokayukta
allowed. Then the Crime Branch took another
3 months to finish the investigation.
c. On 16.9.20, the Crime Branch made submission that charge-sheet has been
submitted to the court of SDJM, Bhubaneswar vide chargesheet
No. 6 dt. 16.9.20 u/s 167/409/420/467/468/120-B IPC against twenty accused persons including
officials to face their
trail in the court
of law. However, further
investigation as envisaged U/S
173(8) CrPC has been
undertaken to collect other documentary as well as oral evidence and to
examine the
complicity of other persons
in the alleged crime.
Concluding Remarks
In this case , the
poor innocent tribal
people who are ignorant
of law were arrested
on the allegation of illegal sale
of land, as their lease deed was
cancelled by the ADM ,
Khurda without intimating them.
But the highly educated and law-knowing person and powerful
people like Pranab Balaantaray ,
MLA and Nivritti singhdeo, daughter of K..Singhdeo were not
arrested by Crime Branch,
though they illegally
purchased the land being pretty
aware about the
land situation. It is very interesting
to note that though 7
years passed, the Crime Branch
could not complete the investigation,
though all material facts are available.
This is tragedy in Odisha
that the investigative agency could
not complete the investigation
into illegal transaction of 18
acres of land since 7
years. The credibility of the Crime Branch in connection with investigation into this land scam is questionable. After intervention of the Lokayukta, Odisha, this issue
has come to limelight and the
people are sensitised how
the Crime Branch operates in Odisha.
Pradip Pradhan
Date- 3.10.20
M-9937843482
