NEW DELHI: Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena has imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on Rishi Patel, Assistant Section Officer of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), in connection with a land allotment case in Safdarjung Enclave dating back to 2020.
The L-G has also directed the DDA to re-examine the punishment handed down to another officer, Paras Nath, Deputy Director (now retired). Earlier, in the same matter, the L-G had dismissed another DDA officer, Dilshad Ahmad.
According to officials, Patel, along with his colleagues, had fraudulently allotted land worth crores of rupees in South Delhi’s Safdarjung Enclave on the basis of fictitious papers, in connivance with the beneficiary.
The case traces back to a recommendation dated February 28, 1979, by the Land & Building (L&B) Department for the allotment of an alternative plot to Prabha Kshetrapal. However, the Joint Secretary (L&B), through a letter dated February 17, 1981, instructed that no action be taken on these recommendations until confirmed by higher authorities.
Decades later, in July 2020, two e-mails were received at the DDA requesting possession of the plot. Following this, the DDA sought clarification from the L&B Department. In October and November 2020, letters purportedly from the L&B Department confirmed the validity of the earlier recommendation. Acting on this, the DDA handed over possession of the plot on January 5, 2021.
However, in February 2021, suspicions of fraud arose. Through a letter dated March 10, 2021, the L&B Department clarified that the February 1979 recommendation letter had not been issued by their office. They further confirmed that the October 23, 2020 letter was fabricated, while the November 12, 2020 letter had been tampered with. Subsequently, the DDA cancelled the allotment on June 3, 2021.
Based on the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission, common major disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Patel, Ahmad, and Nath. The charges noted that all three failed to examine the case diligently, despite it being revived after four decades. They allegedly ignored differing signatures of the allottee, failed to verify the genuineness of documents by summoning the beneficiary in person, and neglected mandatory procedures such as obtaining acknowledgments, account clearances, and verification of crucial letters.