Land-for-Jobs Scam: Lalu Prasad’s Land Parcels in Name of Wife & Daughters, Says ED

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) have alleged that the sale deed of lands given in lieu of jobs in railways in the land-for-jobs case were issued in the name of Rabri Devi, former CM of Bihar and wife of former Union railways minister Lalu Prasad and their two daughters Misa Bharti and Hema Yadav.

Four parcels of land which were allegedly issued at the orders of Lalu Prasad have been identified by the agencies wherein two of them are in the name of Rabri Devi. The other two are each in the name of their daughters, Misa Bharti and Hema Yadav.

It was reported that two parcels of land issued in favour of Rabri Devi are located in village Mahuabagh while another located in village Kaudia was given to Misa Bharti. Both the parcels of land fall in Patna. However, a portion of two industrial plots located in Ghaziabad are proceeds of the crime which were later purchased by Hema Yadav.

The ED said this in a chargesheet filed on Tuesday in the land-for-jobs case naming Rabri Devi, Misa Bharti and others. Additionally, similar sale deeds were issued in the name of two companies including M/s AK Infosystems Private Limited whose erstwhile promoter Amit Katyal was arrested by the ED last November. The said company had received a land parcel from the candidate’s relative who was allegedly selected as Group-D substitute in the Indian Railways at the behest of the then Union Railways Minister, Lalu Prasad. Nonetheless, AK Infosystem was later handed out to the family members of Lalu Prasad in 2014 by Katyal without any monetary benefits as confirmed by the people.

According to the ED, the “proceeds of crime” were allegedly utilised to purchase a property in New Friends Colony, New Delhi, which was bought in the name of another company M/s AB Exports Ltd. It also alleged that Katyal is a close aide of Lalu Prasad and family.

The ED attached all the said parcels of land, in Patna, Delhi and Ghaziabad under relevant provisions of PMLA last year.

A month before Katyal’s arrest in November last year, he had petitioned at the Delhi HC seeking a stay on any coercive steps by the ED. According to reports, Katyal in his petition had claimed that he was a protected witness of the CBI and that he had “fully cooperated” with the CBI which resulted in a chargesheet filed by the agency. Additionally, he claimed that he was cited as a witness by the CBI in its chargesheet.

The CBI in its charge sheet, filed in July last year, had furnished statements of two prosecution witnesses – PW 36 and PW 37 – in a sealed cover. The agency had withheld the identities of the two prosecution witnesses in the “interest of justice and public interest”.

Reports also indicated that CBI, in its charge sheet furnished statements of two prosecution witnesses (PW 36 & PW 37) last year in July, in a sealed cover. The identities of the two prosecution witnesses were withheld by the CBI in the “interest of justice and public interest”.

The High Court did not favour the said claims. Th November 3 order held, “nothing has been placed before this court which shows that petitioner herein (Katyal) is a witness in the CBI case.”

Moreover, Katyal is currently not an accused in the CBI’s case.