Punjab Land Controversy: Vigilance Bureau Set to Close Hamdard Case

After years of meticulous investigation and a rather intricate legal dance, it appears the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB) is finally ready to put a lid on the long-standing Hamdard land allotment case. In a significant development, the VB has decided to submit a cancellation report to the High Court, essentially indicating that they’ve found no criminal culpability against Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories or the government officials initially implicated in the alleged scam.

You see, this whole saga revolves around a prime 20-acre plot of land situated in Mohali's coveted Phase VI. The VB had initially registered an FIR back in 2017, accusing Hamdard of acquiring this land at a concessional rate—a rather sweet deal, if you ask me—ostensibly for educational purposes. The plot thickened when it was alleged that the land was later diverted for commercial gain, specifically for setting up a university, which certainly wasn't the original intent of the low-cost allotment.

The original land deal dates back to 2004, where the plot was allotted for approximately Rs 12.06 crore. The catch? It came with a strict condition: no commercial use for 15 years. However, Hamdard subsequently sought a change in land use, citing the need to establish a university. The VB, in its initial zeal, contended that Hamdard should have shelled out a whopping Rs 200 crore, the prevailing market rate, if it intended to use the land for such a venture. This discrepancy formed the crux of the original accusations.

But the path to justice, or at least clarification, has been anything but straightforward. The High Court, having reviewed the initial FIR, wasn't entirely convinced. They took the crucial step of quashing the FIR against Hamdard and the involved officials, deeming it an "abuse of process." Yet, in a move that kept the investigative flame alive, the court granted the VB the liberty to proceed with its probe "as per law." This pivotal decision led to the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), tasked with delving deeper into the nuances of the case.

This SIT, comprising dedicated investigators, had the unenviable task of sifting through mountains of documents, policy frameworks, and statements. What did they uncover? Well, their findings, which are now forming the basis of the VB’s cancellation report, suggest that the initial allotment and the subsequent changes in land use were, believe it or not, in adherence to the existing policies and procedures of the time. They concluded that there was no criminal intent or malfeasance involved, rather just actions taken within the then-prevailing administrative guidelines.

To ensure a robust and impartial review, the SIT didn't just rely on their own interpretations. They went a step further, seeking expert legal opinions from none other than the Advocate General and a retired High Court judge. These independent assessments seemingly reinforced the SIT’s conclusion that criminal culpability simply wasn't evident. Essentially, it wasn't a case of wrongdoing, but perhaps a difference in interpretation or evolving policies over time.

So, after what feels like an eternity for those involved – spanning half a decade since the FIR was registered – the Punjab Vigilance Bureau is preparing to tell the High Court that, based on all available evidence and expert legal advice, the case against Hamdard and the government functionaries should be closed. It marks a significant moment, bringing a potential end to a complex legal battle that has kept many on tenterhooks, including retired IAS officers who found themselves caught in the crosshairs.