Noida Land Allotment Scam: SC Upholds Conviction Of Former UP Chief Secretary Neera Yadav, Reduces Sentence [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld conviction of former UP Chief Secretary Neera Yadav and former IAS officer Rajiv Kumar in Noida land allotment scam that took place between 1993 and 1995.

The Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi, however, reduced the quantum of sentence from three years to two years.

The Central Bureau of Investigation had alleged that Ms. Yadav, a 1971 batch IAS officer, had violated norms in allotting a prime plot of land to an industrialist, when she was the Chief Executive Officer of Noida in 1995. The CBI had claimed that Ms. Yadav had misused her official position as a public servant, and that the allotment had cost the Government more than a crore in losses.

It was further alleged that she had entered into a criminal conspiracy with 1983-batch IAS Officer, Rajiv Kumar, the then Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Noida, to change land use of a plot which was earmarked for a guesthouse and also increased its area in violation of norms.

The Apex Court was now hearing two Appeals challenging a judgment passed in February last year by Allahabad High Court upholding the conviction of Ms. Yadav and Mr. Kumar under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by public servant) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Agreeing with reasoning recorded in the impugned orders, the Court opined that the conversion of the plot from a guest house to a residential plot was approved solely to “suit the convenience of the appellant and to gain advantage to himself by getting a plot in the developed Sector.”

The Court further noted the cuttings and over-writings made in the proposal for conversion of the plot, and observed, “The strong ‘cuttings’ and ‘overwritings’ made in order to make the original words or figures illegible, itself show the dishonest intention behind the cuttings and overwritings. The manner of cuttings in Ex. A-16 itself shows that they are not on account of any clerical mistake or inadvertent error but they are a deliberate attempt made with ulterior motive to cause benefit to appellants and clearly they have been made so substantially that the matter beneath them may not be read by naked eyes even after efforts.”

The Court, hence, ruled that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts “are well balanced and we do not find any reason warranting interference.”