Traces the unbridled gratis handover of India's President's estates.

1. Lucre of Allotment of the President’s Estates in India - I
Shantanu Basu
Memorial creation comes with authority and to sustain memory, comes patronage, also the lucre of the
greenback. Several thousand acres of prime Govt. of India (GoI) land was gifted away in New Delhi/Delhi
by successive governments at rates way below then prevailing market rates. Isn’t it a travesty that GoI lands
in prime areas are being leased at rents way below those of modest Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
flats in less exclusive areas today, provided one has the political clout and money muscle? The
instrumentality of State involved is the Land & Development Office (L&DO) of the Ministry of Urban
Development (MUD) that is the custodian of giant tracts of land all over India, on behalf of the President of
India.
The AICC, operating through its Jawahar Bhavan Trust was allotted 4736.10 sq metres of land on RP Road
on Sep 8, 1975 and a further 4583.32 sq. mts. at an adjoining site on Dec 21, 1976. On Nov 19, 2007 (Mrs.
Indira Gandhi’s birthday) another plot (9-A) on Kotla Road of 8093 sq. mts. was allotted to AICC for its
own office building. The DPCC was allotted Rouse Avenue Plot no. 2 on May 15, 1987. No small wonder
that the Congress is now attempting to create a database of the innumerable properties it owns, directly and
through fronts and other trust, etc. in a baid to encash them to fill depleting party coffers.
Likewise, the NDA govt. allotted 8095.80 sq. mt. plot in Pocket- 6-A DDU Marg (Rouse Ave.) on Aug. 14,
2014 for BJP’s national HQ and 809 sq. mts. for its state unit in Pocket -5 DDU Marg on Nov. 27, 2014. On
Dec. 31, 2001, the then NDA govt. even allotted two plots of land on MB Road to the Sri Math Guru
Gorakhnath Trust, i.e. BJP MP Adityanath’s trust with its HQ in Gorakhpur. The BJP was also gifted Plot
No. 1 on Rouse Ave. on Apr. 25, 2001. More largesse was given to the BJP with two plots between RP and
Raisina Road on Mar. 8, 2001 for a total area of 3.74 acres. Even the ICS-IAS Wives’ Association (I have
never heard of it) was allotted a 1913.28 sq. mt. plot in Sector-VII, RK Puram on Sep. 13, 2000. The VHP
too was obliged with a plot of 3753.40 sq. mts each in Hanuman Mandir area and RK Puram on Jul 26,
1999.
This site has details of innumerable trusts, religious and charitable, elite schools, etc. that have benefitted
from this largesse. Surprisingly, the site lists only 814 allotments made from 1930-2002, a highly
improbable figure. Although L&DO land was allotted to several national and regional newspapers
(including National Herald) along Delhi’s Fleet Street, the L&DO’s list shows only The Pioneer as a
beneficiary of 2147.21 sq. metres in RK Puram on Apr. 24, 1999. Even National Herald House does not
figure in this list, least of all, inter alia, the Times of India and Indian Express buildings. Since DDA came
into existence only in 1957, all lands in Delhi were vested in the L&DO or the erstwhile Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Yet L&DO seems to have no idea of its real holdings, and consequently lease
rents due to it, at current MCD circle rates. What is more intriguing is the fact that L&DO’s published list
ends in 2002, and has not been updated over the last 13 years, of which an entire decade was under the UPA
regime.
Where are major private luxury hotels and exclusive clubs in and around the CBD and Chanakyapuri and
innumerable religious institutions that dot Lodi Estate and Lodi Road, on this list? What are the antecedents
of innumerable private bodies that have been allotted plots on Delhi’s Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg (Rouse
Avenue), academic institutions in Chanakyapuri with established links to successive ruling majority parties
in the Govt. of India? Has the L&DO ever carried out on-site inspections to ascertain the bona fide use and
unauthorized changes in lease holder of the lands it allotted? If so, why are their reports not available in the
public domain? How were their lease rents determined and have they been paid regularly? How many
allottments are being used for unauthorized commercial operations? Has the L&DO ever received any share
of such profits? Has L&DO resumed any allotment on grounds of mala fide use or for illegal transfer of
lease?
Now, let us come to the rates at which these lands were given away. Residential market rates per sq. yd.
from 1972-79 for Connaught Place varied from Rs. 200-300/sq. yd and Rs. 400-1000/sq. yd. The figures for
Diplomatic Enclave varied from Rs. 175-450 depending upon use. Defence Colony was cheap at Rs. 150-

2. 400, Jantar Mantar Road at Rs. 200-500, Prithviraj Road at Rs. 175-500 while Amrita Shergil Marg
(Ratendon Rd.) ranged from Rs. 150-500 and Sunder Nagar Rs. 150-400. Even when these were raised from
Apr 1, 1998 (to date presumably owing to no updation on site), it was pegged in a range of Rs. 18480-57960
for Connaught Place, Rs. 13860-28980 for Amrita Shergill Marg and vicinity while Defence Colony and
Vasant Vihar brushed shoulders with Sewa Nagar at Rs. 11550-24150 per sq. mt.
Institutional rates were similarly unbelievable. From Apr 1, 1998 (the web site shows no revision), the
current institutional rates remain at Rs. 88 lakh/acre for Central and South Zones, having risen from a paltry
Rs. 52 and 39 lakh /acre respectively from Apr 1, 1989 –Mar 31, 1998, i.e. nine fiscals. For movie halls the
current rates are perhaps even lower at Rs. 2250/- per Sq. Yd. with 250 FAR (i.e. FAR of 100 and 1000 seats
for cinema and with permission to let out the balance of constructions on the remaining 150 FAR for shops
and commercial establishments in the Connaught Place and its extension areas. Therefore, 2000 sqm. of
L&DO land on Ratendon Road (Amrita Shergill Marg) may have been sold in the block 1998-date for any
price ranging from Rs. 3 lakh – 3 crore for residential purpose, whereas media reports suggest prices, upon
resale, of Rs. 150-200 crore and upward each. Similarly, an acre plot for an institution in Connaught Place
would have been sold in the unbelievable range of Rs. 5 – 88 lakh.
The use of the term ‘allotted’ used by L&DO on its web site is equally intriguing. Were these allotted on
long leases and subject to the purpose for which they were given? Were these given the benefit of
conversion from lease to free hold? If so, how many converted and how much was recovered from them as
conversion charges? At the time of conversion what was the actual market price (not the L&DO version)
and what was the differential between the market price and conversion charges? Did the GoI obtain any
premium on such conversion? These are questions that would strike any voter of common prudence.
Now let us turn to Ferozeshah Kotla (FSK) to illustrate the magnitude of political patronage in full
perspective. My information is primarily based upon an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC)
of mid-2015 on an appeal filed by the noted RTI activist, Subhash Agarwal, against the Delhi District
Cricket Association (DDCA) that is available in the public domain. FSK measures 14.281 acres and was
allotted to DDCA on temporary basis in 1986 and extended in 2002 for a period of 33 years (the L&DO site
records no pre-1986 history). DDCA was required to pay license fee @ Rs. 5,500/- per acre per annum for
the open space and at the rate of 5% per annum @ Rs. 88 lacs per acre for built up area, revisable after every
11 years on the basis of land rates prevailing at that time. DDCA presently pays a measly Rs 24.64 lakh as
license fee annually.
Since 2002, no lease has been executed by MUD with DDCA, for want of compliance with various
requirements listed by L&DO. DDCA has brazenly defied all attempts of L&DO to complete the requisite
formalities to date. In view of non-execution of the lease deed, the state continues to hold all sorts of
controls over the land, which was allotted to DDCA, which has the license to use and nothing more than
that. This gives all powers of control such as putting conditions on usage of land, collecting damages for
misuse or abuse of the land, seeking share in the commercial proceeds of the land, besides having
representation in the management also. The control the Government wields over the DDCA is thus deep and
all pervasive. This control was reflected in the efforts of L&DO to collect damage charges of Rs. 24.33 crore
from the DDCA.
In her reply to Lok Sabha unstarred question no. 6964 (of Shri Kirti Azad, MP) on May 8, 2015, Ms.
Nirmala Seetharaman, Union Minister of State for Corporate Affairs, admitted serious infractions of the
Companies Act, 2013 and the dubious role of the DDCA’s auditor. The reply remained content with a
statement that legal action had been initiated against the auditor and that relevant information from the
inspection report (of SFIO) u/s 209A of Companies Act, 1956, had been ‘shared’ with the Income Tax
Department, the Ministry of Urban Development and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. Evidently,
nothing has come of these actions. Otherwise, why would the Govt. of India not use the findings to defend
its beleaguered Finance Minister? Incidentally, the Union Finance Minister also wears the Corporate Affairs
cabinet hat.
As if this were not enough, in Sep, 2014, DDA admitted to the CIC that the lowest market rate for the North
Zone (including FSK) was Rs. 99608/- per sq. metre. By this yardstick, the total value of FSK (57,789
sq.mtr.) was Rs. 575.62 crores with annual lease rental, calculated at 5% of the above value, at Rs. 28.78

3. crore, i.e. 100-fold more! The L&DO’s information in 2015 sought to play down the DDA’s figure. Against
the L&DO’s ‘institutional’ rate of Rs. 88 lakh, i.e. 2174.52/sq. metre, its market rate was a phenomenal Rs.
57960/sq. metre, i.e. about 28-fold more! Even then, the corresponding value ought to have been Rs. 334.94
crore and lease rent Rs. 16.74 crore/annum. The profit/loss accounts submitted by DDCA for the financial
years ending on 31.3.2011, 31.3.2012 and 31.3.2013 showed profit of Rs. 5.65 crores, Rs. 4.71 crores and
loss of Rs. 65.87 lakhs respectively. Hence, DDCA did not ostensibly have the means to pay such hefty
lease rent.
The author is a senior public policy analyst and commentator
Lucre of Allotment of the President’s Estates in India - II
Shantanu Basu
When Subhash Agarwal’s petition went in second appeal before a full bench of the CIC, it appeared that the
figures of market price, hence lease rent, quoted by both DDA and L&DO previously bore no resemblance
to ground reality as of 2014-15. Basing itself upon MCD’s notified circle rate of land at Rs. 159840/sq.
metre for Daryaganj ward (in which FSK falls), CIC derived the current market price of FSK in the range of
Rs. Rs. 2310.91 crore (lease rent being Rs. 115.54 Crore) – Rs. Rs. 3888.77 Crore (lease rent being Rs. Rs
194.43 Crore). The Bench observed, “……….the State is subsidizing the activities of DDCA to the tune of
Rs. 115 or 199 crores. If this difference is multiplied with number of years the DDCA in possession of the
land, it comes to thousands of crores of rupees which legitimately should have added to public exchequer.”
In effect, DDCA’s FSK was worth immeasurably over Rs. 4000 crore and lease rent would be a minimum of
about Rs. 200 crore per annum.
The CIC was also intrigued by the fact that FSK was assessed at MCD’s category ‘C’ rate of Rs. 1.59
lakh/sq. metre instead of category ‘A’ at Rs. 7.50 lakh/sq. metre for that area, i.e. five times less!
Interestingly, the CIC observed, “Another major factor that is left uncertain is the exact commercial value of
the land. This cannot be calculated because there is no commercial transaction of the land in this part of the
capital city. Hence the actual value could be only a guess work, which could be far above than what
anybody could have assessed.” What was even more intriguing was that the L&DO accepted that there was
no scientific valuation of commercial properties in Delhi since 1994. Mocking arbitrarily low prices, hence
lease rent, DDCA issues, on its official web site, a “welcome to the world of Corporate Hospitality” while
boasting of a large and well-stocked bar, dining hall, card room, health club, indoor badminton court. It also
organizes tambola evenings every Saturday for its members “with gifts being given away, apart from very
attractive prize money”.
Yet DDCA was unable to pay the market lease rent and therefore there was every reason for the Lessor
(Govt. of India) to inquire into the financial decisions of the DDCA. Not surprisingly, DDCA was not a
public authority under the RTI Act when institutions like India International Centre and Punjab Cricket
Association were deemed to be one by high courts. Needless to add, FSK’s stadium had no approvals from
statutory bodies like DUAC, ASI, MCD, Fire Services, etc. and for every cricket match temporary approvals
were obtained from MCD, on purely extraneous considerations, endangering the lives of 45000 spectators.
Although no Government property could be sub-leased, DDCA illegally constructed 10 Corporate Boxes
and sub-leased these boxes, in an unauthorized manner, for 10 years to corporates such as ONGC and
collected about Rs 36 crore, without seeking approval of the land owners i.e. L&DO. Nearly Rs 158 crore
spent on building an unauthorized stadium had no credible accounts available. SFIO confirmed that no
tenders were issued for work carried out/materials purchased even for non-routine items. Then why is it that
DDCA’s audited accounts did not show such huge receipt and payment transactions? Why is that the
Registrar of Companies, again under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, maintained, and continues to do, its
silence even as it is guilty of dereliction of duty by a public servant under S. 467 of the Indian Penal Code?

4. No member of DDCA can be paid any fees for doing any work for DDCA (S. 8 of Companies Act, 2013).
Further, S. 8 enables DDCA to perpetuate power in its Governing Council members for years together by
misusing the proxy system. Not surprisingly, the Executive Committee members on DDCA’s web site have
no date of appointment mentioned against each, nor any date of re-election. Surprisingly, DDCA does not
carry the list of its past Presidents on its web site, unless this has been recently removed. Nor is there any
organogram that shows the relation and composition of it Governing Council/Body and its relationship with
its Executive Committee. DDCA fought cases with Government departments contesting property tax, ESI.
etc. and kept paying large amounts in legal fees to its legal retainer. DDCA also allegedly cheated on
entertainment tax by pricing a large number of tickets at a mere Rs. 100 while paying spectators paid huge
premium of Rs 10000-Rs 50000/per seat. Recent charges of fraud with non-existent contractors having been
engaged, without any competitive bidding is only part of the same fabric.
Although Ms. Sitharaman in her above reply said the SFIO’s report indicated violations of sections 36, 150,
166/210, 209(1), 209(3)(b), 211 read with Schedule VI, 217(3), 285, 299, 303, 309, 314 and 211(3A)/(3C)
of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Accounting Standards- 5, 15, 18, 19, 22 and 29, all the offences were
compoundable in nature and the Company and officers in default have compounded the same before the
Hon’ble Company Law Board. What the Minister omitted to mention was that DDCA managed to wriggle
out of the charges by paying a contemptible Rs. 1.33 lakh each by three office bearers (of 27) for
compounding the infractions. This was when they ought to have been fined Rs. 50 lakh each (for all 27
bearers) for the malpractices. Interestingly, the most serious objection raised by the SFIO was regarding the
lease of the FSK stadium and stadium erection/renovation work. The report perhaps also recommended an
external audit. Evidently, the audit has not been carried out, which is why the Govt. of India is not able to
produce the report with corrective/punitive action thereon, seven months after Ms. Sitharaman’s reply in the
Lok Sabha.
What does the above discussion mean to us lay persons? First, that several thousand acres, even hectares, of
prime land owned by the Govt. of India, has been historically hugely undervalued while being allotted to
private entities. Second, successive Govts. of India, irrespective of their political affiliation, persisted with
these virtually gratis handovers. Third, such wilful undervaluation vastly understated lease rent that accrued
to the Govt. of India. Fourth, there was no provision to relate lease rental to current market prices of that
land. Fifth, there was deliberate omission in monitoring the end-use of the allotted lands by those allotted.
Sixth, another wilful omission was the absence of any share for the Govt. of India from the current proceeds
of commercial proceeds from such land that would have yielded large revenues from entities like DDCA.
Seventh, even when the Companies Act, 2013 was promulgated, after several years of deliberations, the
loophole of S. 8 – non-profit companies – was deliberately left unplugged to enable lifelong tenures for
office bearers via proxy voting and unlawful receipts and payments, much of it off official accounts. In
effect, this loophole made the hijacking of national resources much easier, all for the sharing. Eighth, even
as this legal loophole remained intact, the reticence of the Govt. of India to take conclusive punitive action
against malfeasance clearly pointed to its complicity in milking this loophole for its chosen few. Ninth,
given the vast real estate controlled by sports bodies, politicians and sports brokers joined hands, again
irrespective of political affiliations, with many continuing through regimes of different persuasion. Last, but
not the least, in time an unholy nexus has emerged between leading politicians, across political divides,
united in malfeasance, and sports brokers that have never held a cricket bat, hockey stick or badminton and
tennis racquets. And that is at the heart of the ongoing controversy over the DDCA involving India’s
Finance Minister.
I covered GoI land in New Delhi/Delhi only, that too not in further detail. The patronage extended to the
states as well, notably prime real estate in metros and Tier-II cities, in gargantuan proportion since
immeasurably more land was available there than in Delhi. Malfeasance is apparent in all land deals
involving the President of India’s countrywide real estate worth immeasurable lakh crore Rupees. The land
and all natural resources belong to our citizens; it must be used for public purposes, not to feather the nests
of a select few!
The author is a senior public policy analyst and commentator