Manesar land deal:No illegality committed by trial court, says HC on summoning of 5, including former IAS officer, as additional accused

Hindustan Times

22-05-2025

The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has said that the special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court, Panchkula, did not commit an 'illegality' while summoning five officers, including former IAS Rajeev Arora, as additional accused in the controversial Manesar land deal.
'Illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned special court in summoning the petitioners. The challenge to the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be rejected. Consequently, all the petitions stand dismissed,' the bench said.
In December 2020, while framing charges against former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and 32 others, the trial court had summoned Arora and four other officers as additional accused, who had not been indicted in the CBI chargesheet. The trial was stayed by high court on December 14, 2020. The May 15, detailed judgment of which has been released now, paves the way for the commencement of the trial.
The high court bench of justice Manjari Nehru Kaul rejected the argument of the petitioners that they had been cited as prosecution witnesses and no new material had emerged subsequent to the filing of the chargesheet that would warrant their summoning as accused.
'…the court is only required to ascertain from the material on record whether a prima facie case is made out. The court is not expected to evaluate the probative value or conclusiveness of the material. If, upon consideration of the record, the court discerns the involvement of any person in the commission of the offence who has not been arrayed as an accused, it is well within its powers to summon such person to stand trial,' the bench added.
In this judgment, the court has dealt with the issue of summoning officers as accused.
The judgment on the petitions from builders and some private persons challenging framing of charges against them is still awaited. Hooda himself had not challenged the trial court order.
Those summoned as additional accused by the trial court in December included former Haryana home secretary Rajeev Arora, who served as the managing director of HSIIDC between 2005 and 2012; HSIIDC former chief town planner Surjit Singh; former chief town planner of the town and country planning department Dhare Singh; the then deputy superintendent, town and country planning, Kulwant Singh Lamba; and the then director, industries DR Dhingra.
The high court rejected the argument of the petitioners that prosecution sanction is required in the case of retired public servants also in view of the amendment to Section 19 of the PC Act. The amendment requiring prosecution sanction in the case of retired public servants came into effect in July 2018, while cognisance of the case by the trial court was taken in March 2018, prior to the amendment. 'Thus, the amendment requiring sanction for retired public servants does not retrospectively apply to the present case. Consequently, no sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is required in the case of the petitioners (other than petitioner Rajeev Arora),' the bench observed adding that even in the case of Arora, court did not direct the authorities for granting prosecution sanction but only said that material available in his case be put up before the competent authority. Arora, at the time of the summoning order, was working while other accused persons had retired.
The court further said that the petitioners held key positions in the HSIIDC and the department of industries at the relevant point in time. The special court took into consideration various materials forming part of the chargesheet, which prima facie indicated 'their complicity', it said.
To the argument that the court could have ordered further investigation, the high court said there is no legal requirement that the special court must invariably direct further investigation upon disagreeing with the police report. 'On the contrary, the law empowers the court to directly summon persons found prima facie involved based on the material placed before it,' it added.
'It is impermissible for the trial court, at this preliminary juncture, to embark upon a detailed evaluation of the defence put forth by the accused, nor is it appropriate for the court to delve into or critically assess the probative value or merits of the case of the prosecution. Engaging in such an exercise would amount to conducting a mini-trial, which is legally impermissible and contrary to the settled position of law,' the bench underlined.
The case
The controversy dates back to 2004. The Haryana government issued a notification to acquire 912 acres of land under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on August 27, 2004, in Manesar, Lakhnaula and Naurangpur villages. Worried that this would reduce the value of their land, owners sold it at throwaway rates, resulting in a wrongful loss of ₹1,500 crore, as per the CBI probe.
On August 24, 2007, the then director industries passed another order, releasing the land, in violation of government policy, in favour of the people who had bought the land, instead of the original landowners, CBI had alleged in its chargesheet. The Central agency had started a probe in September 2015, and in 2018, it filed a chargesheet running into 80,000 pages against 34 people, including Hooda. The charges were framed against 33, including Hooda, in December 2020 and these five officers were summoned as additional accused, an order challenged in high court, the same month.