New Delhi: Anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal Wednesday questioned the Haryana government’s clarification on a 30-acre plot sold to realty major DLF by a hospitality company, saying it should have kept the land for a hospital stipulated to come up there.
The allegations again drew the Congress’s attack, which accused Kejriwal of shooting off his mouth without substantial evidence.
Kejriwal Wednesday continued his attack on the Haryana government and said it could have prevented the sale of the land in Gurgaon to DLF and allowed a hospital to be built at the place.
“An honest government would have acquired it for hospital, cancelled the sale. Rather than doing this, it allowed DLF to build an SEZ,” he said.
Kejriwal had Tuesday released a set of documents to establish alleged quid pro quo between Haryana government and DLF, which has business links with Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra.
He had said that 30 acres of land in Gurgaon was supposed to be used for constructing a hospital but the Haryana government had issued notifications to allow DLF to use it for an SEZ.
Kejriwal had added that Punjab and Haryana High Court had passed strictures against the Haryana government, terming its action “mala fide” and showing a “nexus”.
Following Kejriwal’s allegations, the Haryana government had denied that it had granted favours to DLF.
Congress spokesperson Renuka Chowdhury also said Haryana government and DLF had already refuted Kejriwal’s allegations and said he was shooting his mouth off without substantial evidence.
She accused Kejriwal of speaking in a “slipshod” way.
“Because he randomly shoots, we’re supposed to come out and answer,” she said.
Referring to Kejriwal’s allegation concerning 30 acres of land in Gurgaon stipulated for hospital, she said the land did not belong to the state government.
The Haryana government had said Tuesday that the 30-acre land was owned by East India Hotels (EIH) and was transferred by it to DLF in 2005. It said the high court had quashed the land sale in February 2011 and the matter was pending in the Supreme Court.