A Gurgaon court has ordered the registration of a case and a detailed police investigation into the mysterious disbursement of Rs 37.78 lakh in land acquisition compensation meant for a widow and her two daughters, after serious discrepancies emerged in official records and bank documentation.

The original compensation was first allotted to the widow and her two daughters in 2012, but they claimed they never got the money that is now not being traced.

The order was passed by Additional District Judge Dr Gagan Geet Kaur in the Murti Devi & Others vs State of Haryana & others case, raising critical questions whether the compensation amount was actually paid or not. The order was pronounced on March 23, the copy of which has become available now.

Rs 37 lakh deposited via cheque: govt records

The matter pertains to an amount of Rs 37,78,009.80, which, according to government records, was deposited via cheque (No 681461 dated December 1, 2000), later converted into six demand drafts and allegedly disbursed. However, the decree holders, including Murti Devi and others, have consistently maintained that they never received the payment, despite prolonged litigation extending up to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Gurgaon court has now noted that this contradiction raises a “serious question” about the actual recipients of the funds.

The execution petition was originally filed by Murti Devi, wife of Ram Kanwar (deceased), and her daughters Kamla Devi and Bimla Devi on March 12, 2012, seeking enforcement of court orders dated August 15, 2002, and May 6, 2008 pertaining to a land acquisition compensation amount.

During its pendency, the matter reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2014, which directed the executing court to decide the case within three months.

Subsequently, in July 2014, a much larger amount —Rs 5.61 crore — was deposited and released to the decree holders, leading the executing court in May 2016 to declare the matter fully satisfied.

However, the applicants challenged this conclusion before the High Court, arguing that the Rs 37.78 lakh component remained unpaid. In July 2023, the High Court restored the execution petition, reviving the dispute.

During recent proceedings, the court attempted to trace the disputed amount through official records. However, significant inconsistencies surfaced as there was no mention of the Rs 37.78 lakh deposit in the original land acquisition reference records; the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) office produced account statements showing issuance of six demand drafts in December 2000, but lacked any record of their final disbursement; the bank concerned (then Oriental Bank of Commerce, now merged with Punjab National Bank) confirmed that the drafts were encashed but failed to disclose who withdrew the money or when.

The court termed the bank’s explanation as “evasive and vague.”

Govt officials unable to explain discrepancies

Further scrutiny revealed irregularities in government records, including duplicate and overwritten entries in dispatch registers dated December 2000; unusual sequencing and formatting of file entries, deviating from standard procedure; mismatched reference numbers between court files and LAC office records; and absence of any court order or documentation confirming payment to the claimants.

Officials, including the deputy superintendent and revenue staff, were unable to explain these discrepancies.

Major procedural anomaly

The court also highlighted a major procedural anomaly — in 2000, compensation payments were typically deposited in the government treasury; however, in this case, the amount was routed through demand drafts — a deviation from standard practice — without any clear audit trail.

In contrast, the larger Rs 5.61 crore compensation paid later was properly deposited through treasury channels, further deepening suspicion over the earlier payment.

Despite multiple directions, neither the land acquisition authorities nor the bank could provide a clear account of the disbursement.

An affidavit filed by the bank manager did not disclose the identity of the beneficiary, citing difficulties due to the merger of banks. Similarly, the affidavit submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector on March 20, 2026, merely affirmed the existing records without resolving the inconsistencies.

Given the unresolved discrepancies, missing records, and doubtful documentation, the Gurgaon court concluded that a thorough criminal investigation was necessary. The court directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, to “register an FIR in the matter; constitute a Special Investigating Team (SIT) and conduct a detailed probe to uncover the truth”.

The court emphasised that the investigation is essential “so that truth comes out and the matter be taken to its logical end.”

The court has now ordered that all original records be preserved under judicial custody and made available to investigating officers as required. The matter is now listed for April 30 for a status report on the investigation.