Ayodhya: A multi-crore land deal between an Ayodhya resident and an NGO under the aegis of spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s Art of Living has gone awry after a local revenue court cancelled the mutation process stating that the plot “does not exist (in entirety) on the ground” mentioned and was “located in the floodplains” of the Saryu river.
At the centre of the deal is an agreement of Rs 9.5 crore that was signed between purchaser NGO Vyakti Vikas Kendra India (VVKI) and seller Abdul Kalam, a resident of Ghosiyana in Uttar Pradesh’s Ayodhya district, on 7 February, 2022, for a 5.3-hectare plot located in the district’s Manjha Jamthara village.
After payment of stamp duty of over Rs 68 lakh to the state government, the land deal has been stalled after the local court of assistant revenue officer (ARO) cancelled the mutation process through an order issued in April this year.
In his order, which ThePrint has accessed, the ARO said that the entire land plot did not exist at the stated spot and fell in the floodplain area where sale and purchase had been stopped by a 2022 order of the Sadar sub-divisional magistrate (SDM).
“The (entire) area presented in the purchase letter does not exist on the ground,” reads the order. “The land falls in the floodplain area. Since no construction can be done in the area, no physical possession can be given in the floodplain area.”
According to the VVKI, though, its intention was not to carry out construction on the plot purchased.
Speaking to ThePrint, Amit Singh — who has been authorised by the VVKI to participate in legal proceedings on its behalf — said the idea was not concretisation but “to create an open-air meditation centre near the Saryu river”.
“Since the land is near the riverbank and the under-construction Ram Mandir, too, would be visible from there, it was purchased with the objective to build an open-air meditation centre, where trees would be planted to give a peaceful atmosphere to those interested in meditation,” said Singh.
“Ever since the Jamthara dam has been constructed, the land technically doesn’t fall in the floodplain area anymore,” he added.
Singh pointed out that when Ravi Shankar had arrived in Ayodhya and inspected the Manjha Jamthara site on 14 December, 2021, news items were published in local newspapers about the NGO’s interest in buying plots of land there.
“Nothing was hidden. Everything was in the public domain. We got advertisements published in the leading newspapers inviting any claims on the land. A board was put up at the site three months before the benama was signed, informing about the NGO’s intent to purchase it, but no objection was received,” he asserted.
Speaking to ThePrint, Pradeep Pathak, volunteer for Art of Living’s UP unit, who was engaged in the purchase process, told ThePrint that the intention of the organisation was not to conduct “any commercial activity” at the plot in question.
“We planned to have an open-air centre amid tree plantations. Our plan is still in place. We will fight the court order,” he said.
When asked about the court’s assertion that the entire plot did not exist in the area mentioned, Singh said that before the land was purchased, the local lekhpal (accountant), Ram Pratap Yadav, had provided a chauhaddi (map) of the area concerned which stated the plot measurements.
“The measurements said the plot was 5.3120 hectares in size. If the land was not there at the spot, how could the lekhpal give in writing that it measured 5.3120 hectares?” he asked.
When contacted, ARO Ram Kumar Shukla told ThePrint that the matter was pending in the courts of the additional commissioner (Ayodhya), the DM and the revenue board.
“Since the matter is sub judice, I cannot comment on anything. I have submitted my response to the revenue board this month. As SDM (Sadar), I had stayed the sale-purchase of the area in 2022 so that outsiders don’t get misled into purchasing floodplain areas,” he said.
The next hearing in the case before the revenue board is slated for 9 November.
Also Read: Infra boom to ‘Ramayana’ boat ride, Ayodhya is getting Rs 57,000 crore makeover to match Ram temple
Why mutation process was cancelled
Following the cancellation of the mutation process by the ARO in April, the court had noted that the entry made in the name of the seller, Abdul Kalam, for the piece of land concerned in revenue records in 2016 was “unauthorised”, and cancelled the same from the records via an order passed on 20 May this year.
While the VVKI has moved the courts of additional commissioner (Ayodhya administration) and the DM, appealing against the April order, Kalam has approached the revenue board against the cancellation of the entry in his name.
In an order dated 9 October, the court of Ram Sinhasan Prem, member of the Lucknow revenue board, directed both sides to maintain status quo on the land concerned and issued a notice to ARO Shukla seeking the case records from his court.
According to the ARO court’s records, accessed by ThePrint, the VVKI had signed a benama (agreement) with Abdul Kalam for plot number 1 minjumla of landholding number 79 in Manjha Jamthara village for around Rs 9.5 crore on 7 February, 2022.
Minjumla is a land revenue term used for a combined group of plots.
After paying stamp duty of Rs 68,04,700 lakh to the Ayodhya stamp and registration department, the VVKI filed an application in the ARO court for the mutation process on 17 February, 2022, for change of ownership in revenue records.
While public notices were issued in newspapers in January 2022 stating that “the purchaser proposed to buy plot number 1 minjumla measuring 5.3120 hectares” (around 21 bigha) and inviting any objections to the deal, the ARO court on 29 April this year cancelled the mutation process.
While cancelling the mutation process, the ARO had said that the entry in revenue records of the mentioned plot measuring 21 bigha (5.3120 hectares) done via an order on 27 January, 2016, of the then ARO was “unauthorised”.
The same day, the ARO lodged a case against Abdul Kalam stating that there were errors in the entry of the land concerned in revenue records.
A notice was issued to Abdul Kalam subsequently and on 20 May, 2023, the entry of the 21 bigha plot was cancelled from the revenue records.
In the cancellation order, which is in possession of ThePrint, ARO Shukla said that in the revenue records pertaining to 1388-1391 crop year (1980-1984), there was an entry in the name of “Fayaaz Khatoon” against landholding number 79 but there was no mention of plot number or area.
However, on 27 January, 2016, an order was issued by the then ARO to make an entry in the name of Abdul Kalam on the basis of a will and also, an order was issued to make an entry for 21 bighas, the order added.
The April cancellation order pointed out that according to a report of the survey conducted by the local lekhpal, in the revenue records pertaining to crop year 1359 (1952), the land size mentioned against plot number 1134 minjumla of landholding number 79 was five bighas while in the land records for the 1388-1391 crop year (1980-1984), there was no mention of plot number and size.
The ARO’s cancellation order also said that while the plot number and size of land belonging to Fayaz Khatoon was found absent in the revenue records pertaining to 1388-1391 crop year (1980-1984), the entry done in January 2016 “increased the land size as 21 bigha”.
“In the land settlement document of 1365 crop year (1957-58), the land (where the plot concerned is located) has been mentioned as floodplain,” reads the order, adding that the execution of the will and the increase in land size didn’t seem to be legally correct.
Speaking to ThePrint, Abdul Kalam said Fayaaz Khatoon was his deceased aunt and that an entry was made in his name in the revenue records several years after his aunt’s death in 2004.
“My aunt died in 2004 and an entry was made for mutation of the land in my name through an order of the then ARO who happens to be a government employee. Officials had then entered the right name on the basis of legal documents. I am in possession of the revenue records and all documents. I have appealed against the order in the revenue board in Lucknow, which ordered status quo in the case on 9 October,” he said.
Two appeals against the ARO’s April 2023 order filed by VVKI remain pending in the court of Ayodhya additional commissioner (administration) and the DM. While the first was filed on 19 May, 2023, the second was filed on 23 August, 2023.
Speaking to ThePrint, Rajendra Tripathi, additional commissioner (judicial commission) of Ayodha who heard the case when he was presiding as additional commissioner (administration), said: “The land was sold to the NGO according to the size mentioned in the revenue records but it needs to be established whether the deal was fraud or genuine. It has been alleged that the land size was fraudulently increased and sold off. The NGO’s contention is that the purchase happened correctly. They have filed a suit. I heard it when I was presiding as additional commissioner,” said Tripathi.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)