Guj IAS officer had fixed bribe rates as collector, used to take 50 per cent share: ED tells court
Ahmedabad (PTI): IAS officer and former Surendranagar collector Rajendrakumar Patel had allegedly fixed bribe rates ranging from Rs 5 to Rs 10 per square metre for approving change of land use (CLU) applications, according to the Enforcement Directorate investigating a money laundering angle.
Bribes were systematically demanded and collected as "speed money" to expedite CLU applications and routed through a network of intermediaries operating from the district collector's office in Gujarat, the ED stated in a remand application submitted before a special PMLA court in Ahmedabad on January 2.
The court remanded Patel to ED custody till January 7.
ALSO READ: India becomes world's largest rice producer, surpasses China: Agri minister
A "hisaab" (accounts) of bribe collections was maintained and periodically transmitted to the district collector’s personal assistant, as per the digital evidence.
Investigations have so far traced more than 800 CLU applications where bribes were allegedly paid, resulting in the generation of proceeds of crime exceeding Rs 10 crore, which is part of the larger proceeds of crime.
The ED stated that Patel, a 2015-batch IAS officer and the then Surendranagar collector, was the key beneficiary and final decision-maker in the bribery-linked money laundering racket involving CLU approvals.
Patel was transferred without posting a week earlier, following the ED’s arrest of a deputy mamlatdar (revenue officer), Chandrasingh Mori, from his office in connection with the case.
The federal agency is investigating alleged money laundering involving Patel, Mori, and others after registering an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Seeking custodial remand, the ED told the court that bribes were systematically demanded and collected as "speed money" to expedite CLU applications. The rates were allegedly pre-fixed at Rs 5 to Rs 10 per square metre, depending on the nature of the application and applicable legal provisions.
The agency said that Patel, as the district collector at the relevant time, was the ultimate authority for granting CLU approvals under the Saurashtra Gharkhed, Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance, 1949, and the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. His position enabled him to control and influence the pace and outcome of CLU applications.
The ED stated that while the generation of proceeds of crime has been established prima facie, the layering, concealment, and integration of these funds are yet to be fully ascertained, making custodial interrogation necessary.
Statements recorded under the PMLA allegedly indicate a fixed sharing arrangement of the bribe amounts. Of the total bribe collected, 50 per cent allegedly went to Patel, 10 per cent was retained by an intermediary, and the remaining amount was distributed among other officials in the collectorate, including the resident additional collector, a mamlatdar, and a clerk.
The ED cited the statement of one Chetan Kanzaria, who allegedly admitted that the prevailing rate for CLU approvals was Rs 10 per square metre and that he had personally paid around Rs 65 lakh in bribes to the Surendranagar collector’s office to secure approvals.
In his statement, Patel’s PA, Jayrajsinh Zala, said that he used to share details of bribe collections with the collector from time to time and that 50 per cent of the total bribe money collected from CLU applicants was handed over to Patel.
Mori had earlier stated that Zala collected the collector’s share from him and delivered it to Patel.
Digital evidence recovered from mobile phones allegedly showed WhatsApp communications, PDF files, and photographs showing the maintenance of "hisaab" (accounts) of bribe collections and their periodic transmission to the district collector’s personal assistant.
WhatsApp communications retrieved from Mori’s phone allegedly showed that the entire network was managed and controlled as per the collector’s instructions.
The ED further alleged that although a flat in Ahmedabad was purchased in Patel’s name, the rental income was received in his mother’s bank account. The agency also claimed that Patel did not pay his children’s school fees, suggesting that household expenses were met using unaccounted cash.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ballari violence: Were cops made scapegoats to cover political failure?
Bengaluru: Across Karnataka, a serious discussion has begun after the violence in Ballari and the swift action taken against police officers who were on the ground that day. The core question being asked is simple: when law and order fails, why are police officers the first to be shown the door, while political responsibility is quietly pushed aside?
The January 1 clash in Ballari was not a sudden street fight. It was a political confrontation involving supporters of two sitting MLAs. A banner related to the unveiling of a Valmiki statue became the flashpoint. What followed was stone-pelting, firing, and the death of a Congress worker. The situation spiralled within hours.
Within a day, Ballari SP Pavan Nejjur was suspended. Soon after, senior officers were reshuffled. Deputy Inspector General of Police Vartika Katiyar was transferred. No official reason was cited in the notification. But the timing made one thing clear: accountability, at least on paper, had been fixed.
Since then, there has been unease within police circles and political debate outside it.
Unconfirmed reports that Nejjur attempted suicide after his suspension were firmly denied by senior officers and the home minister. They said he was safe, resting, and under stress. Still, the very fact that such reports gained traction says something about the pressure officers feel when action is taken overnight, without public clarity.
Opposition leaders have called Nejjur a scapegoat, pointing out that he had taken charge only hours before the violence. They have asked how an officer can be blamed for a political clash he barely had time to assess. They have also drawn parallels with earlier incidents where police leadership was suspended after tragedies, while political decision-making remained untouched.
However, responding to this criticism, Home Minister G Parameshwara rejected the argument that the suspension was unfair because Nejjur had assumed charge only hours earlier. “It is not important whether he reported to duty on the same day (of incident) or one hour back. Duty is duty. He is not new to the department. IPS officers are trained to handle such situations any time. If he had acted swiftly and promptly, he could have prevented the situation from escalating.” He had said adding that Nejjur did not discharge his duties properly and that this was the reason for his suspension.
Now, fresh and unconfirmed reports suggest that Vartika Katiyar may have met a senior cabinet minister, questioning why she was made to pay the price for a situation that was political in nature. There is no official confirmation of this meeting. But the talk itself has added fuel to the debate.
What is being discussed in the state is not whether the police made mistakes. Many acknowledge that the situation on January 1 was mishandled. A clash earlier in the day was allowed to cool down without strong preventive action. Later, a banner came up near a politically sensitive location. The crowd should not have been allowed to build up. Better anticipation was needed.
At the same time, critics are asking whether the entire burden can be placed on officers when the trigger itself was political rivalry. Who installed the banner? Who mobilised supporters? Who had armed private gunmen present at the spot? These are questions that are still part of the investigation, yet administrative punishment moved faster than political accountability.
This has led to a wider comparison with past incidents, including the Bengaluru stampede after the RCB victory celebrations. There too, police officers were suspended after lives were lost, while decisions taken at higher levels were defended as unavoidable. Many are now saying Ballari fits into the same pattern.
The argument being made is not that the police are blameless. The argument is that responsibility appears to stop at the uniform. When things go wrong, officers are transferred or suspended to send a message. But when the violence is rooted in political rivalry, that message feels incomplete.
Within police ranks, there is also quiet concern about working conditions. Officers say they are expected to manage volatile political situations overnight, often with little room to push back against powerful interests. When things hold, they are invisible. When they collapse, they stand alone.
The Ballari episode has once again exposed this fault line.
For the government, the challenge is larger than one suspension or transfer. The real test is whether it is willing to publicly acknowledge political failures when law and order breaks down, instead of letting the system suggest that the police alone dropped the ball.
For now, what remains is a growing feeling across Karnataka that accountability is selective. And that whenever politics turns violent, the easiest answer is to change the officers, not the decisions that led to the violence in the first place.
