# Smt. Neera Yadav Revisionist v. C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh)

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 490
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-01-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 2282 of 2004
- **Bench:** Syed Rafat Alam, Sunil Ambwani, Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-neera-yadav-revisionist-v-c-b-i-bharat-sangh-40774
- **Pages:** 52

## Headnote

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure-S-197Saenction
by
state
Government-for
prosecuting a serving Public Servant
under the provision of Prevention of
corruption Act 1988 as well as Indian
Penal Code necessary when the central
Government
has
already
granted
sanction u/s 19 of the Act of 1988.

Held: Para 91,98 & 125

In respect to a member of Indian
Administrative
Service
the
Cadre
controlling authority is Government of
India. We are of the view that whereas
conduct of a member of All India Service
is of concern of both the Governments,
namely, State Government and Central
Government,
the
ultimate
prevailing
authority is the Central Government and
not
the
State
Government.
 This,
however,
would
not
have
much
relevance in order to determine the
authority competent to grant sanction.

Once the authority competent to remove
a
public
servant,
has
recorded
its
satisfaction
and
has
granted
the
sanction, the requirement of any further
sanction
may
create
substantive
obstruction in the way of prosecution of
such public servant. There is no reason
or compulsion to assume a similar
scrutiny
by
a
different
authority
particularly
when
the
appointing
authority itself has analyzed the matter
and has recorded its satisfaction. It
would not only be superfluous but may
frustrate the very object of grant of
sanction.
A
member
of
Indian
Administrative Services working in State
cadre may develop, with the passage of
time, and in discharge of his duties,
cordial relations with the politicians and
others, who matter in the concerned
State.

Thus, answering question no.1, we are
not agreeable with the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that
sanction, under both the Acts, i.e., the
Act of 1988 & Cr.P.C., is necessary, for
1 All] Smt. Neera Yadav V. C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh)
491
prosecution under Section 13 or any
other provision of the Act of 1988.
(B) Prevention of corruption Act 1988 S13 (1) (d) and (2) readwith Indian Penal
Code S-120-B-offence u/s 13 (1)(d) and
(2) of the Act No. 88 offence of Criminal
conspiracy would not came within the
term in discharge of official duty"-heldprovision of S-197 Cr.P.C. no application.

Held: Para 143

In the present case, three charge sheets
contain offence under Section 13(1)(d)
and (2) of Act of 1988 read with Section
120-B, I.P.C. and one charge sheet is
only under Section 13(1) (d) & (2) of the
Act of 1988. The offences under Act of
1988 as has been held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Harihar Prasad (Supra),
Kalicharan Mahapatra (Supra), which
still holds field, does not come within the
purview of word "in discharge of the
official duty". Thus, the offence of
criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B,
I.P.C., would also not be within the term
"in discharge of official duty" and,
therefore, Section 197 Cr.P.C. has no
application at all.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC-1573
1996 (1) SCC-177
J.T. 2005 (12) SC-369
2001 SCC (Cr.) 872
AIR 1955 SC-287
2001 Alld. Crl. Reporter-7
AIR 2005 SC-325
1978 (15) ACC 192
AIR 1988 SC-2595
AIR 1999 SC-1767
AIR 1988 SC-1537
AIR 1948 P.C.-82
1997 SCC (Crl.) 420
2000 ACC-123
2005 (1) Crime I
2004 (2) SCC-349
2005 (1) Crime-54
AIR 1958 SC-107
AIR 1963 SC-1116
AIR 1975 SC-1835
1991 (3) SCC-655
31 Cr.L.J.-1930
1953 Cr.L.J.-1929
AIR 1955 Cal.-430
1973 Mad Law J. (Crl.)-660
1996 (1) SCC-478
2000 (Crl) SCC-872
1996 (1) SCC-478
2004 (2) SCC-349
AIR 2004 SC-2179
2004 (2) SCC-349
J.T. 2006 (1) SC-1

## Text

_Characters 0–39,994 of 163,662. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39994 for what follows._

490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
interest of the Corporation. The L.I.C. of
India cannot disclaim the liability to make
payment of assured amount under life
policy no. 310786680 for the acts and
omissions of its agent or medical
practitioner appointed by it to examine the
deceased before accepting the proposal.

10. In view of the forgoing
discussion, we allow the writ petition with
no order as to costs. The respondents are
directed to make payment of the assured
amount with interest under the life policy
no. 310786680 within a period of one
month from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SYED RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2282 of 2004

Smt. Neera Yadav
...Revisionist
Versus
C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh)
...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Daya Shanker Misra
Sri Chandra Kesh Misra
Sri Gopal Chaturvedi
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri V.P. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri G.S. Hajela
Sri Baldeo Raj (In Person)
A.G.A.

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure-S-197Saenction
by
state
Government-for
prosecuting a serving Public Servant
under the provision of Prevention of
corruption Act 1988 as well as Indian
Penal Code necessary when the central
Government
has
already
granted
sanction u/s 19 of the Act of 1988.

Held: Para 91,98 & 125

In respect to a member of Indian
Administrative
Service
the
Cadre
controlling authority is Government of
India. We are of the view that whereas
conduct of a member of All India Service
is of concern of both the Governments,
namely, State Government and Central
Government,
the
ultimate
prevailing
authority is the Central Government and
not
the
State
Government.
 This,
however,
would
not
have
much
relevance in order to determine the
authority competent to grant sanction.

Once the authority competent to remove
a
public
servant,
has
recorded
its
satisfaction
and
has
granted
the
sanction, the requirement of any further
sanction
may
create
substantive
obstruction in the way of prosecution of
such public servant. There is no reason
or compulsion to assume a similar
scrutiny
by
a
different
authority
particularly
when
the
appointing
authority itself has analyzed the matter
and has recorded its satisfaction. It
would not only be superfluous but may
frustrate the very object of grant of
sanction.
A
member
of
Indian
Administrative Services working in State
cadre may develop, with the passage of
time, and in discharge of his duties,
cordial relations with the politicians and
others, who matter in the concerned
State.

Thus, answering question no.1, we are
not agreeable with the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that
sanction, under both the Acts, i.e., the
Act of 1988 & Cr.P.C., is necessary, for
1 All] Smt. Neera Yadav V. C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh)
491
prosecution under Section 13 or any
other provision of the Act of 1988.
(B) Prevention of corruption Act 1988 S13 (1) (d) and (2) readwith Indian Penal
Code S-120-B-offence u/s 13 (1)(d) and
(2) of the Act No. 88 offence of Criminal
conspiracy would not came within the
term in discharge of official duty"-heldprovision of S-197 Cr.P.C. no application.

Held: Para 143

In the present case, three charge sheets
contain offence under Section 13(1)(d)
and (2) of Act of 1988 read with Section
120-B, I.P.C. and one charge sheet is
only under Section 13(1) (d) & (2) of the
Act of 1988. The offences under Act of
1988 as has been held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Harihar Prasad (Supra),
Kalicharan Mahapatra (Supra), which
still holds field, does not come within the
purview of word "in discharge of the
official duty". Thus, the offence of
criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B,
I.P.C., would also not be within the term
"in discharge of official duty" and,
therefore, Section 197 Cr.P.C. has no
application at all.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC-1573
1996 (1) SCC-177
J.T. 2005 (12) SC-369
2001 SCC (Cr.) 872
AIR 1955 SC-287
2001 Alld. Crl. Reporter-7
AIR 2005 SC-325
1978 (15) ACC 192
AIR 1988 SC-2595
AIR 1999 SC-1767
AIR 1988 SC-1537
AIR 1948 P.C.-82
1997 SCC (Crl.) 420
2000 ACC-123
2005 (1) Crime I
2004 (2) SCC-349
2005 (1) Crime-54
AIR 1958 SC-107
AIR 1963 SC-1116
AIR 1975 SC-1835
1991 (3) SCC-655
31 Cr.L.J.-1930
1953 Cr.L.J.-1929
AIR 1955 Cal.-430
1973 Mad Law J. (Crl.)-660
1996 (1) SCC-478
2000 (Crl) SCC-872
1996 (1) SCC-478
2004 (2) SCC-349
AIR 2004 SC-2179
2004 (2) SCC-349
J.T. 2006 (1) SC-1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Rafat Alam, J.)

1. The Division Bench after hearing
the aforesaid matter, delivered two
different opinions on the question of
requirement of sanction under Section
197 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in
short ''the Cr.P.C.'), and has referred the
questions to be answered by the Full
Bench. The basic issue relates to the
requirement of sanction by the State
Government under Section 197, Cr.P.C.
for prosecuting a serving public servant
under the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ''the Act of
1988') as well as the Indian Penal Code,
when sanction under Section 19 of the
Act of 1988 has been granted by the
Central Government. Whether in such
case, a further sanction under Section 197,
Cr.P.C. will also be necessary, and if so,
the effect of the absence thereof.

2. In order to appreciate the issues
arising in the case, it is necessary to
examine the facts of the case upon which
the issues have arisen.

3. The petitioners, Smt. Neera
Yadav and Shri Rajiv Kumar are
members of the Indian Administrative
Service of U.P. cadre. Smt.Neera Yadav
was posted as Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority (in short NOIDA)
vide order dated 7.3.94 (Annex. S.R.A.5
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
(Cha) in Special Appeal No. 2300/2004)
in pursuance thereto she joined on 10.1.94
and worked till 8.11.1995. Sri Rajeev
Kumar was posted as Deputy Chief
Executive Officer, NOIDA during the
relevant time.

4. Alleging that in aforesaid capacity
lots of irregularities and illegalities were
committed by them along with others, a
writ petition (C) No.150/97 was filed
before the Apex Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India as a Public
Interest
Litigation
by
NOIDA
Entrepreneurs Association, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court passed an order dated
20.1.98 directing the Central Bureau of
Investigation
(in
short
`CBI')
to
investigate into the allotment of plots of
NOIDA and to launch prosecution and
departmental inquiries on the basis of
investigation, if the same is called for.

5. For brevity the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is quoted as
under:

"In pursuance to the order dated
January 6, 1998, an affidavit of Shri
Sudhir Kumar, Secretary (Appointment),
Government of U.P. has been filed on
behalf of the State of U.P. wherein the
course of the action which the State Govt.
proposes to adopt with regard to the
report of the Inquiry Commission has
been indicated. It has been stated that the
State
Govt.
proposes
to
initiate
disciplinary
proceedings
against
respondent No.7 and to have the charges
about
which
the
Commission
has
expressed its inability to give specific
recommendation for want of further
investigation to be inquired into by the
Vigilance
Department
of
the
State.
Having regard to the seriousness of the
allegations that have been made in the
matter of irregularities in the matter of
allotment as well as conversion of plots in
NOIDA we are of the opinion that it
would be appropriate that the matter is
investigated by the Central Bureau of
Investigation
(CBI)
and
if
such
investigation discloses commission of a
criminal offence the persons found
responsible should be prosecuted in a
criminal court. For the time being, we
are directing the CBI to conduct an
investigation
in
respect
of
the
irregularities in the matter of allotments
and conversions of the plots to which
reference has been made in the letters of
the Director (CBI) dated December 6,
1995 and December 16, 1996 (at pages
115 and 116 of the paperbook) and the
self-contained note appended to the letter
dated December 16, 1996.
Shri G.L. Sanghi, the learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent No.7
states that though the respondent No.7
does not admit that she has committed
any irregularity in the matter of allotment
or conversion of plots in NOIDA but
according to respondent No.7 there are
other persons who might have committed
such irregularity and he seeks leave to file
an affidavit in this regard. He may file an
affidavit giving
particulars of such
irregular allotments and in the event of
such
affidavit
being
filed
further
directions in that regard will be given.
As regards the irregular allotment
and conversion of plots that which have
been found to have been made in the
report of the Inquiry Commission, we are
of the view that it is necessary that action
should be taken for cancellation of such
allotments and conversions. Shri Rajeev
Dhawan, prays for two weeks time to file
a list of persons who have been fitted by
such irregular allotments/ conversions.
1 All] Smt. Neera Yadav V. C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh)
493
He may do so within two weeks. As
regards the plots which have been
irregularly allotted or converted as
mentioned in the report of the Inquiry
Commission, it is directed that the
allottees as well as the persons in
possession thereof shall maintain status
quo as it exists today with regard to
possession and constructions over the
same and that they shall not alienate or
create any third party rights in these
properties. Respondent No.1 is directed
to ensure compliance of these directions.
It is, however, made clear that while
passing these directions we are not
expressing any view of the validity of the
allotment or conversion of the said plots.
The learned counsel for the State of
U.P. undertakes to supply a copy of the
report of Inquiry Commission to the
learned counsel for respondent No.1 and
the
learned
counsel
for
the
CBI."(Emphasis added)

6. In compliance of the aforesaid
order CBI registered a case RC No.3
(A)/98/ACU-VII, New Delhi on 26.2.98
and made its investigation. On the basis of
its findings, it appears that a letter dated
28.3.2002 was sent by CBI to the
Government of India stating that the
petitioners and some other persons were
guilty of certain offences under Section
420 read with 120-B IPC and therefore, if
sanction of the State Government is
necessary, suitable action may be taken. A
copy of this letter was endorsed to the
State Government of U.P.

7. The Government of India sent
letter dated 15.4.2002 to the D.I.G., C.B.I.
suggesting if the State Government's
sanction is required in respect of certain
offences under I.P.C., the same may be
deleted. In the meantime, the State
Government considered the matter on its
own on the basis of letter dated 28.3.2002,
which was endorsed to it only by way of
information,
and
conveyed
to
Government of India its refusal to grant
sanction under Section 197, Cr.P.C. for
prosecution of Smt. Neera Yadav and
Mr.Rajiv Kumar. The said letter also
states that the State Government has also
taken a decision that no departmental
action is required to be taken against Smt.
Neera Yadav and Mr. Rajiv Kumar. It
also requested the Government of India to
close the matter against them.

8. The Government of India,
however,
considered
the
recommendations and the findings of
investigation of C.B.I. and vide its order
dated 9.9.2002 granted sanction under
Section 19 of Act of 1988 for prosecuting
petitioners under Sections 13 (1) (d) and
13 (2) of Act of 1988 read with 120-B
IPC and for any other offences punishable
under other provisions of law in respect of
the
aforesaid
acts
and
for
taking
cognizance of the said offences by the
Court of competent jurisdiction. The
C.B.I., consequently, filed separate charge
sheets before the Special Judge, C.B.I.
under
Act
of
1988
against
these
petitioners.

9. It would be relevant in the context
to quote in verbatim the charge sheets
submitted by the CBI in the Court of
Special Judge;

"Charge sheet No. 1/2002-
10. Sector 14-A in NOIDA was
carved out in 1984 as a residential colony
for the staff and officers of NOIDA. The
lay out of this sector was prepared in the
year 1991 earmarking five residential
plots Nos.25, 25A, 26, 27 and 28, besides
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
a plot of land for a club house. The areas
of Plot Nos.26, 27 and 28 were of uneven
sizes upto 10.02.1994 when the same
were re-organised to 450 Sq. mtrs. each
by Shri S.P. Gautam, the then Chief
Architect Planner (CAP), NOIDA. Out of
the said plots, two were kept for
residential purposes and rest (7) check for
the guest house of NOIDA with the
approval of Smt. Neera Yadav, the then
CCEO, on 21.02.1994. On 28.5.94, Shri
S.P. Gautam, as per directions of Smt.
Neera Yadav, put up a proposal for
providing 7.5 mtrs. wide road in between
the residence of Chairman, Greater
NOIDA and Plot No.26 in sector 14-A
and also for increasing the area of Plot
No.26 from 450 Sq. mtrs. to 562.5 Sq.
mtrs., Plot No.27 from 450 Sq. mtrs. to
525 Sq. mtrs. and Plot No.28 from 450
Sq. mtrs. to 487.5 Sq. mtrs. and
earmarked Plot No.27 for guest house of
NOIDA.
This
re-organisation
was
approved by Smt. Neera Yadav on
31.5.1994.

11. Shri Rajiv Kumar, DCEO made
an application dated 16.8.94 for allotment
of a plot of land of the largest size
available measuring 450 sq. mtrs. in the
residential plot scheme No.1994 (III) in
category VI and deposited Rs.50,000/- as
registration money. The plot of 450 Sq.
Meters was the largest in use of the plots
available for allotment in the said scheme.
His application was registered vide
Sl.No.6/94 (III) on 16.8.1994. The draw
of lots for the said scheme was held on
21.9.94 vide which Sh. Rajiv Kumar was
allotted plot No.B-86, Sector-51, NOIDA
measuring 450 sq. mtrs.

12. Sh. Rajiv Kumar was informed
about the allotment of Plot No.B-86
measuring 450 sq. mtrs, Sector 51,
NOIDA vide letter No.NOIDA /DMC (R)
/94/5474 dt.27.9.94. On the very same
day, he made request for conversion of his
aforesaid allotted plot to a smaller plot in
Sector-14-A, which was a prestigious
sector of NOIDA. Shri Rajiv Kumar was
allowed conversion of his plot in Sector51 to a plot No.A-36 in Sector 44, Noida
on 15.10.1994, which was communicated
to him, vide the letter No. NOIDA/Sr.DM
(R)/ 94/ 73 dated 15.10.94. Shri Rajiv
Kumar again requested Smt. Neera Yadav
vide another letter dt.15.10.94 that the
plot allotted to him in Sector-44 was not
as per his requirement and he was
interested in getting a plot only in Sector
14-A & may be allowed conversion in
only Sector-14-A by allotting a plot of
smaller size. Shri S.P. Gautam, CAP,
NOIDA made alterations in his note dated
31.5.1994 at the instance of Smt. Neera
Yadav showing the size of plot No.27 in
Sector 14-A as 300 Sq. mts. in order to
suit the requirements of Shri Rajiv Kumar
who was the real beneficiary of the said
alterations. The request of Shri Rajiv
Kumar for conversion of his plot to the
plot No.27 in sector 14-A was thereafter
processed and approved by Smt. Neera
Yadav on 15.10.1994 itself. Even though
as per conversion rules/ guidelines of
NOIDA, conversion was allowed only
once but in the case of Shri Rajiv Kumar
the same was done twice as mentioned
above to benefit him. The said conversion
was communicated to Shri Rajiv Kumar
vide letter No.NOIDA/ SR- DM (R) 94.74
dt. 17.10.94 and the lease deed of the said
Plot was executed by Shri Rajiv Kumar
jointly with his wife Smt. Neeva Kumar
on 27.7.1995.

13. On the day of the draw of lots
i.e. 21.9.1994, Sh. Rajiv Kumar, DCEO
called Smt. Rekha Devyani, the then
1 All] Smt. Neera Yadav V. C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh)
495
Associate Architect and Shri Tribhuwan
Singh, Chief Architect Planner (CAP) of
the Noida Authority in his chamber and
expressed his desire to change the layout
plan of Sector 14-A, NOIDA and
instructed them to change the nature of
use of plot No.27 from `guest house' to
residential. Smt. Rekha Devyani on the
directions of Shri Rajiv Kumar recorded a
note on 21.9.94 for change of use of plot
No.27 from `guest house' to residential
and put up the same to Sh. Tribhuvan
Singh, the then, CAP who in turn
submitted the same to Sh. Rajiv Kumar.
Shri Rajiv Kumar also recommended the
same and forwarded the said note to the
then CCEO, Smt. Neera Yadav who
approved the same on 24.9.94.

14. A strip of land measuring 3.5x30
Sq. mtrs was shown available in between
Plot No.27 & 28 of Sector 14-A, NOIDA.
The Residential Deptt. of the Noida
Authority
was
not
informed
about
availability of the said additional land in
Sector 14-A, NOIDA. Shri Rajiv Kumar
called ADM (R) on 6.11.1995 and
directed him to prepare a letter of
allotment of the said additional land of
105 sq. meters to him. A letter no.5575/
NOIDA/ DM (R) 95 dt.6.11.95 was
accordingly issued to Shri Rajiv Kumar
by NOIDA allotting the said additional
land to him. No Competent Authority had
approved allotment of the said land to
him. A sum of Rs.1,41,750/- was
deposited by Sh. Rajiv Kumar on the
same
day
vide
Challan
No.96520
dt.06.11.95 as the cost of said additional
land. On 01.12.1995 Shri Rajiv Kumar
directed Shri A.K. Goel, Project Engineer
(III), to put up a note relating to additional
area of 105 sq. mtrs. mentioning therein
that the extra space of 105 sq. mtrs. has
been included in the area of plot No.27.
Shri Rajiv Kumar, the then DCEO by
abusing his official position approved the
same for himself on the same day.

15.

The
aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances
constitute
offences
punishable u/s 120 B IPC r/w 13 (2) r/w
13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act
1988
and
substantive
offence
punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
against Shri Rajiv Kumar, DCEO and
Smt. Neera Yadav, CCEO, NOIDA.

Charge sheet No.2/2002-

16. On 25.11.1991 NOIDA launched
an institutional plot scheme vide which
the land for Nursing homes was offered
@ Rs.2750 per sq. meter and the land for
Hospitals @ Rs.2000 per sq. meter,
limiting the maximum area for nursing
home to 1500 sq. mts. and the minimum
area for the Hospital to 4000 sq. mtrs. In
response to the said advertisement Dr.
Mahesh Sharma, applied for 1000 sq.
mtrs. of land for a Nursing home on
27.4.92. He subsequently revised his
request through another application dated
25.8.93 for one acre of land. On 3.1.1994
he was allotted plot No.11-33/ 27, Sector27 measuring 2925 sq. mtrs. @ Rs.2750/-
per sq. mtr.

17. Dr. Mahesh Sharma of Kailash
Hospital vide his applications dated
4.3.94 and 7.6.94 again requested Smt.
Neera Yadav, the then CCEO Noida
Authority to increase the area of land
from 2925 sq. mtrs. to in between 4000
and 4250 sq. mtrs. for the purposes of
running a hospital. A committee under the
Chairmanship of Shri Rajiv Kumar, IAS
the then Dy. Chief Executive Officer,
NOIDA was constituted on 24.6.94 which
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
opined that additional land was not
available for Kailash Hospital. This
committee also observed that in case extra
land became available in future, the same
could be allotted to Kailash Hospital @
Rs.2750/- per sq. mtr. Smt. Neera Yadav
after discussing the said recommendations
with Shri Rajiv Kumar, DCEO and Shri
Tribhuvan Singh, Chief Architect Planner
(CAP) on 27.6.94 decided to put-up the
request of additional allotment of land for
Kailash Hospital before the Board in its
next meeting.

18. As per the original lay out plan
of Sector 27, NOIDA, there was a park
measuring 0.21 hectare and residential
plots No.H-31, 32, 34 & 35 adjacent to
the plot No.H-33/27 which had already
been allotted to Kailash Nursing Home. In
order to favour Dr. Mahesh Sharma,
CMD, Kailash Hospital, Shri S.P. Gautam
the then Chief Architect & Planner of
NOIDA, on the directions of Smt. Neera
Yadav revised the sector lay out plan of
Sector 27, NOIDA on 16.7.94 vide which
he deleted the residential plot Nos.H-31,
32, 34 & 35 and also reduced the area of
adjoining park in Sector 27, NOIDA and
increased the area of plot No. H-33/27 of
Kailash Nursing Home by 1215 Sq. Mtrs.
making total allotted area of the said plot
to 4140 sq. mtrs. Even though the said
amendment in the layout plan was against
the established procedure as prescribed in
the Gazette Notification of 1991 of U.P.,
Smt. Neera Yadav approved the same on
11.8.1994.

19. The original allottees of plot
No.H-31, H-34 and H-35 of sector 27,
NOIDA were shifted elsewhere without
their consent deliberately for the purpose
of making additional land available to
Kailash Hospital as mentioned above. The
allottee of plot No.H-31/27 Sh. Jamil
Ahmed was asked to give a back dated
application for conversion of his plot.
Even though he did not give any
application for the same, his plot was suomoto converted to plot No.C-246/44 in
Sector 44, NOIDA by Smt. Neera Yadav
on 12.10.94. Similarly, the plot No.H35/27, NOIDA of Shri S.K. Aggarwal,
Junior Engineer, NOIDA was shifted to
the Plot No.H-36/27, NOIDA, and the
plot No.H-34/27, NOIDA of Shri Jagat
Singh Pal, ACAO, NOIDA, to plot No.C233/44, NOIDA without their consent.
The conversion of the said two plots to
sector 44 of NOIDA were done in
violation of the laid down conversion
guidelines of NOIDA dated 3.2.1992 &
29.9.1993.

20. On 12.8.1994 Shri J.S. Arya,
DGM prepared an agenda note for the
Board Meeting dated 23.8.1994 which
was approved by Smt. Neera Yadav on
12.8.1994 itself. It was mentioned in the
said note that M/s Kailash Hospital had
requested for allotment of 4000 sq. mtrs.
of land and the plot No.H-33/27 was
allotted to it. It also gave reference of the
Minutes of meeting of the committee
headed by the DCEO on 24.6.94 in which
it was specifically mentioned that the
request of Kailash Hospital could not be
accepted because no additional land was
available there and if at all any land
became available in the future, the Noida
Authority could allot the same to the said
Hospital at the rate of Rs.2750 per sq.
mtr. As against the said circumstances it
was mentioned in the agenda for Board
meeting dated 12.8.1994 that the area of
4140 sq. mtrs. had become available for
allotment
to
Kailash
Hospital
@
Rs.2000/- per sq. mtr.
1 All] Smt. Neera Yadav V. C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh)
497
21. The facts of non-availability of
land as mentioned in the report dated
24.6.94 of the DCEO, NOIDA, and
displacement of 4 allottees and reduction
of the area of park for the purposes of
making extra land available to Kailash
Hospital was intentionally not mentioned
in the said agenda note. The said agenda
was put up before the 77th Board Meeting
of
NOIDA
on
23.8.94
under
the
Chairmanship of Smt. Neera Yadav,
CCEO and the same was approved
accordingly. A fresh allotment letter for
the entire area of 4140 sq. mtrs. was
issued on 31.8.94 to Kailash Hospital vide
which the entire area including the
additional land of 1215 sq. mtrs. was
charged @ Rs.2000/- per sq. mtr. A
pecuniary benefit of Rs.31,05,000/- in
addition to the allotment of land was thus
caused to Dr. Mahesh Sharma of Kailash
Hospital
and
hereby
causing
a
corresponding wrongful loss to the Noida
Authority.

22.

The
above
facts
and
circumstances constitute commission of
offences punishable under section 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 13
(2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
against Smt. Neera Yadav, IAS, the then
CCEO of the Noida Authority and Dr.
Mahesh Sharma, CMD of the Kailash
Hospital and the substantive offences
punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w Sec.13 (1) (d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
against Smt. Neera Yadav.

Charge sheet No.3/2002-

23. In the 76th Board meeting of
NOIDA which was held on 18.3.94, it
was decided to launch a Corporate Group
Housing Scheme for allotment of group
housing
pockets
to
the
functional
industrial and institutional units located in
NOIDA. Accordingly, the Corporate
Group Housing Scheme was launched on
9.6.94 offering the land at the rate of
Rs.1600 per sq. meter to the eligible
companies. According to the terms and
conditions of the said scheme the
functional industrial units of NOIDA
having a capital investment of more than
Rs.10 crores and annual turn over of more
than Rs.30 crores or the Government/
Semi government institutions and reputed
private institutions who had purchased
land worth Rs.1 crore and above from
NOIDA for their corporate offices were
eligible for allotment of land under the
said scheme.

24. Six applicants viz. M/s. Flex
Industries Ltd., M/s Flex Engineering
Ltd., M/s Salora International Ltd., M/s
Supreme Industries Ltd., M/s Sahara India
Savings & Investments Corporation Ltd.
and M/s Mancare Medical Charitable
Trust applied for allotment of land under
the scheme mentioned above during July
1994 to Sept. 1994. Two out of aforesaid
six applicants fiz M/s. Flex Industries Ltd.
and M/s. Supreme Industries Ltd. were
fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned
above but their applications were neither
processed nor allotment of land was made
to any of them by NOIDA.

25. M/s. Flex Engineering ltd. had
declared its capital investment at Rs.14.37
Crores and the annual turn over at
Rs.15.98 crores in their application
submitted to NOIDA in response to the
advertisement issued under the Corporate
Group Housing Scheme as mentioned
above. The said company was therefore
not eligible for allotment of any land
under the said scheme.
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
26. Smt. Neera Yadav, CCEO,
NOIDA in the 78th Board Meeting of
NOIDA held on 5.10.94 relaxed the
eligibility conditions of the said scheme
from capital investment of Rs.10 crores
and annual turnover of Rs.30 crores to
Rs.3 crores and Rs.10 crores respectively
only with a view to make M/s Flex
Engineering
Ltd.
also
eligible
for
allotment of land under the said scheme.
She also reduced and the rate of land
Rs.1600/- per sq. mtr. To Rs.1200/- per
sq. mtrs. without assigning any valid
reason. An agenda note for the above said
Board Meeting was prepared on the
directions of Smt. Neera Yadav, the then
CCEO of the Noida Authority which was
approved by her on 11.8.94. The said
agenda note was put up before the board
meeting held on 5.10.94 which was
accordingly approved by the Board under
the Chairmanship of Smt. Neera Yadav,
CCEO,
NOIDA.
A
small
cryptic
advertisement was published in the
Rashtriya Sahara on 19.10.1994 & The
Times of India on 21.10.1994 without
mentioning either the revised eligibility
conditions or the revised cost of land
whereas in the initial advertisement both
the above mentioned eligibility conditions
were published.

27.

The
investigation
further
revealed that the revised scheme was to
open from 22.10.94 for which the
application forms were declared to be
available from 22.10.94 but two deficient
applications on the letter heads of the
respective companies namely M/s Flex
Industries Ltd. and M/s Flex Engineering
Ltd. were received by Smt. Neera Yadav
on 20.10.94 itself i.e. two days before
opening of the said scheme. The said
companies
had
not
submitted
their
applications in the prescribed proforma as
mentioned
in
the
advertisement
mentioned above. Even without the said
revised eligibility conditions and the rate
of land, M/s Flex Engineering Ltd. gave
reference of the advertisement dated
19.10.1994 published in Rashtriya Sahara
in their application dated 20.10.1994 &
requested the Chairman, NOIDA to allot
land to them. A similar application was
also filed by M/s Flex Industries Ltd. on
20.10.94. A cheque of Rs.22,00,000/- and
another cheque of Rs.96,000/- was
enclosed with the above mentioned letters
from the side of M/s Flex Engineering
and Flex Industries respectively even
though it was not required to be done at
that time. The said money was required to
be deposited only after the decisions were
taken to allot land to the said companies.
The proposal for allotment of land to both
the above industrial units of Noida were
prepared by Smt. Neera Yadav herself on
21.10.94 which were finally approved by
her on 22.10.94 i.e. on the very day of
opening of the scheme.

28. The applications of M/s Sahara
India Saving & Investments Corporation
Ltd. was received on 16.11.94 and that of
M/s Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills
Ltd. on 20.4.95 under the revised open
ended scheme and despite they being
eligible for allotment of land under the
said scheme no action was taken by the
Noida Authority on the said applications.
M/s Flex Engineering Ltd. and M/s Flex
Industries were thus given undue favours
in the allotment of plots to them by
relaxing the terms and conditions only
suited for them in the said manner.

29. That M/s Flex Industries Ltd.
and M/s Flex Engineering Ltd. had
already submitted their applications on
25.7.94 in reference to the earlier
1 All] Smt. Neera Yadav V. C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh)
499
advertisement dated 9.6.94 for allotment
of land @ Rs.1600/- per sq. mtr.
Indicating thereby that they were all
willing to purchase the land at the said
rate. In spite of the said facts and
circumstances the rates of land were
reduced from Rs.1600/- to Rs.1200/- per
sq. mtr. Without any demand from any
quarter or without any justification
whatsoever which straightway caused the
monetary benefit of Rs.80 lakhs to M/s
Flex Industries Ltd. beside the allotment
of lands to them as mentioned above and
Rs.32 lakhs to M/s Flex Engineering Ltd.
and corresponding wrongful loss to
NOIDA.
As
such
plot
No.U-2/XI,
NOIDA measuring 8000 sq. meters to
M/s Flex Engineering and A-99/51,
NOIDA measuring 20000 sq. meters to
M/s Flex Industries Ltd. were allotted to
them.

30. That according to clause 7 of the
above mentioned scheme the allottees
were required to make full payment of the
cost of the plot after adjusting the reserve
money within 60 days. Smt. Neera Yadav,
however, relaxed the terms of payment
also to the said companies by allowing
payment of 75% of the cost of plot in 10
half yearly installments. Smt. Neera
Yadav also approved the payment of
reserve money in respect of both the
companies by cheque, which as per clause
14 of the scheme was to be accepted in
the form of account payee demand drafts
only.

31.

The
above
facts
and
circumstances
constitute
offences
punishable under section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code r/w Section 13 (2) r/w
Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988 against the aforesaid
Smt. Neera Yadav, IAS the then CEO,
NOIDA and Shri Ashok Chaturvedi,
Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the
Flex Group of Companies, NOIDA and
the substantive offence punishable U/s 13
(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
against Smt. Neera Yadav.

Charge sheet No.4/2002-

32. NOIDA had announced a
residential plot scheme No.1994 (1) for
sectors 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 49 and 53 from
1.3.94 to 7.3.94, and the said scheme was
extended upto 15.3.94. According to the
terms and conditions of the said scheme
the eligible applicants were required to
submit a notarized affidavit and an
employee
certificate
issued
by
the
personnel department of NOIDA on the
prescribed proforma along with the
registration money which was to be paid
only through demand draft/pay order
favouring
NOIDA.
Incomplete
application without the enclosures as
mentioned above would not be accepted
by NOIDA for registration.

33. Smt. Neera Yadav applied for a
residential plot in the said scheme in the
category of an employee of NOIDA. Her
application form was filled up by Shri
B.K. Sharma, ADM (R) of NOIDA and
the same was signed by Smt. Neera
Yadav. The said application form had the
following deficiencies:-

i)
Attested photograph of Smt. Neera
Yadav was not affixed.
ii) Date
of
application
was
not
mentioned.
iii) Signature of the applicant was not
attested by a competent officer.
iv) The required notarized affidavit was
not submitted.
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
v) A certificate required from the
personnel
deptt.
of
NOIDA
certifying that she was an employee
of NOIDA was not enclosed.

Smt.
Neera
Yadav,
however,
managed
to
get
her
incomplete
application accepted by NOIDA. She
issued a cheque No.395207 drawn on
SBI, Noida for Rs.40,000/- towards
registration
money
whereas
it
was
stipulated that the payments to NOIDA
were to be made through an account
payee demand draft/ pay order only. The
above said cheque was dated 15.3.1994
(which was the last date of the scheme in
question) but its proceeds were encashed
by Allahabad bank on behalf of NOIDA
only on 30.03.94.

34. A list of all the applications
received by NOIDA upto the closing date
of the scheme i.e., 15.3.1994 was
prepared in duplicate by Sh. R.V. Tiwari,
Asstt. Accountant of the residential
department of NOIDA on 17.3.1994
along with the details of the bank drafts/
pay
orders
received
towards
the
registration charges for handing over the
same to Allahabad Bank, Sector-2, Noda
for realization. The Manager, Allahabad
Bank,
Noida
received
163
bank
instruments
on
17.3.94
totaling
Rs.65,20,200/-
under
proper
acknowledgement in respect of 163
applications which did not include the
above mentioned cheque No.395207
dt.15.3.94 for Rs.40,000/- given by Smt.
Neera Yadav, CCEO, NOIDA. The
investigation has revealed that the Branch
Manager of Allahabad Bank, Noida
received the cheque of Smt. Neera Yadav
on or around 28.3.94 and accordingly
struck off the earlier endorsement of Sl.
No.163 to read as 164 and the amount of
Rs.65,20,200/- to read as Rs.65,60,200/-
at the end of the said list and initialed the
same. The proceeds of the said cheque
was thereafter received in the bank
account of NOIDA in the Allahabad
Bank, Noida on 30.3.94.

35. Smt. Neera Yadav was allotted
plot No.B-002G, measuring 300 sq. mtrs.
in Sector -32, Noida vide letter No.
Noida/ DM (R)/ 94/ 93 dt. 8.4.94. She
was required to deposit the allotment
money of Rs.1,08,000/- and one time
lease rent of Rs.39,600/-. However, she
deposited only Rs.3600/- as one year's
lease rent on 4.5.1994.

36. On 15.4.94 Smt. Neera Yadav
made a request to the Addl. Chief
Executive officer of NOIDA to convert
her above said plot to a plot of 450 sq.
mtrs. size in some developed and safe
sector on the grounds of security. The said
request was allowed by Smt. Stuti Kacker,
the then Officer On Special Duty (K) of
the Authority on 6.5.94 who was not
competent to do so because as per the
delegation of powers dated 17.6.91 the
Chairman/ CEO of the NOIDA was the
only officer who was competent to allow
conversion of plots in NOIDA. Further,
Smt. Neera Yadav had not made full
payment for the one time lease rent of the
allotted plot as required at the time of
conversion. The plot No. B-002G of Smt.
Neera Yadav was thus converted to plot
No.26 in Sector-14-A measuring 450 sq.
mtrs. Smt. Neera Yadav and her husband
Shri M.S. Yadav took possession of plot
No.26, Sector 14-A, Noida from the
Junior Engineer, CCD-III on 21.5.94.

37. The then Chief Architect Planner
(CAP) of NOIDA on the directions of
Smt. Neera Yadav, CCEO put up a note
1 All] Smt. Neera Yadav V. C.B.I. (Bharat Sangh)
501
dated 28.5.94 for revising the layout plans
of the plot Nos. 26, 27 and 28 by
increasing the sizes of the said plots from
450 sq. mtrs. to 562.5 sq. mtrs., 525 sq.
mtrs. and 487.5 sq. mtrs. respectively
thereby increasing the area of plot No.26
by 112.5 sq. mtrs. In the same note the
CAP also proposed for a provision of 7.5
metres wide road between the plot No.25
and 26 of Sector 14-A to make plot No.26
a corner plot. This was approved by Smt.
Neera Yadav on 31.5.94. The possession
of additional area of 112.5 sq. meters was
taken by Smt. Neera Yadav and her
husband on 2.6.94, although, as per the
normal procedure of NOIDA the area of
the plots cannot be increased after
handing over possession to its allottees.

38. Smt. Neera Yadav while
working as the CCEO, NOIDA had two
unmarried dependent daughters namely
Ms. Samskriti Yadav (Date of Birth
4.10.73), studying in UK and Ms. Suruchi
Yadav (Date of Birth 4.8.75), Studying in
Kirorimal College, Delhi during the year
1994. They were part and parcel of the
family of Smt. Neera Yadav who had
already been allotted a plot of land in
NOIDA
as
mentioned
above.
The
investigation disclosed that as per the
terms and conditions of the relevant
residential scheme of 1994 (II) and 1994
(III),
the
husband,
wife
and
their
dependent children were not separately
eligible for allotment of any plot of land
in NOIDA in the said schemes as they
were to be treated as a single family for
the purpose of allotment of plot of land to
them. Both the said daughters of Smt.
Neera Yadav were, therefore not eligible
for allotment of any plot of land in
NOIDA under any scheme.

39. Smt. Neera Yadav adopted the
modus operandi of getting two different
commercial shops slotted in the names of
her daughters Ms. Samskriti Yadav and
Ms. Suruchi Yadav in NOIDA which she
got declared as functional by NOIDA,
even though the said shops were not
functional. The payments for the said two
shops were made by Smt. Neeera Yadav.
She
thereafter,
got
two
separate
applications
filed
for
allotment
of
residential plots in the names of Ms.
Samskriti and Ms. Suruchi in the
residential scheme 1994 (II) which
remained open from 24.5.94 to 8.6.94.
 Ms. Samskriti was declared successful in
the draw of lots in the said scheme and
allotted plot No.B-73/44 of 450 sq. mtrs.
vide
allotment
letter
dated
1.8.94.
Thereafter, Smt. Neera Yadav in an
irregular manner converted the plot of her
daughter Ms. Samskriti from the plot
No.B-73/ 44 to plot No. A-33, Sector 44,
Noida on 12.10.94 without any formal
request from the allottee.

40. The shop of Ms. Samskriti
Yadav was, thereafter, sold to one Mrs.
Mennakshi Vijay on 19.10.95. It is worth
mentioning that Ms. Samskriti Yadav
while
requesting
the
Development
Manager (C) NOIDA on 19.10.95 to
transfer her shop in the name of Mrs.
Meenakshi Vijay mentioned that she had
already availed of the benefit of taking a
residential plot against the said shop
indicating, thereby the said shop was
acquired by her only with the ulterior
motive of getting a residential plot
allotted to her.

41. Ms. Suruchi also applied for
allotment of a plot of land in the next
residential scheme No.1994 (III) which
remained open from 8.8.94 to 22.8.94.
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
She was declared successful in the draw
of lots and got allotment of the plot No.B88 in Sector 51, Noida on 23.9.94. Smt.
Neera Yadav also converted her plot to
the Plot No. A-32, Sector-44, Noida on
10.10.94 in violation of the laid down
guidelines dated 3.2.1992 and 29.9.93 of
NOIDA. She thus intentionally brought
both her daughters to the immediate
neighbourhood of each other in Sector-44,
NOIDA.

42. Major payments for the above
said shops and plots were made from the
joint accounts of Smt. Neera Yadav and
her husband Sh. M.S. Yadav maintained
in different banks of Noida and Delhi and
also
from
the
two
joint
accounts
maintained
in
Oriental
Bank
of
Commerce, Basant Lok, New Delhi in the
names of (a) Ms. Samskriti, Smt. Neera
Yadav & Shri M.S. Yadav and (b) Ms.
Suruchi, Smt. Neera Yadav and Shri M.S.
Yadav during the years 1994 and 1995.

43. The lease deeds of both the
aforesaid converted residential plots in the
name of both the daughters of Smt. Neera
Yadav were executed on 26.12.94 duly
signed by Ms.