
Vadra-DLF deal: 'Orders to cancel Shikohpur mutation without jurisdiction'
Hindustan TimesA committee of officers constituted by the Haryana government has termed inappropriate and without jurisdiction the orders to cancel the mutation of 3.53 acres in Gurgaon's Shikohpur - the land that was sold by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi's businessman son-in-law Robert Vadra to DLF, it is learnt. Findings Hindustan Times has learnt that the inquiry committee, while looking into the validity of mutation of 3.53 acres and the execution of the sale deed, centred its findings primarily on these aspects: Khemka had contended in his orders that sale of property during pendency of consolidation proceedings was prohibited without the sanction of the consolidation officer. The inquiry committee is learnt to have held that the October 12 order was flawed since the then IG, Registration, had asked the deputy commissioners to inspect the land documents registered in the last seven years by or on behalf of Vadra or his companies as vendor or vendee, whereas the provisions of the Indian Stamps Act stipulate a three-year period from the date of registration of the instrument to call for and examine to ascertain correctness of the value of property. In a nutshell Cancellation of mutation could have been done under the Land Revenue Act and not the Consolidation Act Law department was never consulted on grey areas Only Vadra-DLF mutation singled out Reference regarding under-valuation flawed; period of limitation not taken into account
History of this topic

Khemka firm over report against Vadra
Hindustan Times
Vadra gets clean chit in Haryana land deals
The Hindu
'Khemka order in Shikohpur mutation inappropriate'
Hindustan Times
On last day, shunted Haryana official cancels DLF-Vadra deal
India TV News
Haryana IAS officer scraps Vadra's DLF deal, is shunted
Hindustan TimesDiscover Related














![[Muslim Law] Daughter As Legal Heir Cannot Be Excluded From Revenue Documents Without Recording Valid Reasons: J&K High Court](/static/images/error.jpg)
















![[Land Acquisition Act] Interest Added To Compensation Becomes Part Of Awarded Sum, Cannot Be Segregated For Further Calculation: Jharkhand HC](/static/images/error.jpg)
![Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: January 2025 [Citations: 01 - 36]](/static/images/error.jpg)







![[Municipal Corporation Act] Writ Petition Against District Judge's Order Upholding Imposition Of Property Tax Not Maintainable: Chhattisgarh HC](/static/images/error.jpg)







