Manesar land scam: Court to rule on charges against 3 more accused
Special CBI Judge Rajiv Goyal made the ruling last Friday, following the Punjab and Haryana high court's vacation of a stay on proceedings. The three individuals facing potential charges are former IAS officer D R Dhingra and private persons Dhare Singh and Kulwant Singh Lamba. The court has scheduled July 10 for resumed arguments regarding the chargesheet against this trio.
The extensive case implicates former CM Hooda, his three ex-principal secretaries – Murari Lal Tayal (also facing another trial), S S Dhillon, and Chhattar Singh – as well as various companies and their office bearers involved in the controversial land transactions.
The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings against another accused bureaucrat, Rajiv Arora, who was named in the initial chargesheet.
The scam revolves around 914 acres of land in Manesar, Gurugram district, originally slated for acquisition to develop an Industrial Model Township (IMT). Following the Aug 2004 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, a rush to acquire land at low prices ensued. Builders and land mafia reportedly capitalised on residents' panic, acquiring plots at "throwaway rates".
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn
IC Markets
Đăng ký
Undo
In 2007, the industrial department released the land from the acquisition process.
Allegations of political patronage in the builder-official-land mafia nexus led aggrieved parties to court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed the CBI to probe the matter, leading to the chargesheet naming former CM Hooda.
MSID:: 121731795 413 |
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
18 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC questions Justice Varma's conduct in cash row, reserves order on plea
The Supreme Court told Justice Yashwant Varma on Wednesday that his conduct did not inspire confidence and asked why he chose to move the apex court after an in-house committee found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery row. The top court was hearing Justice Varma's plea seeking invalidation of a report by an in-house inquiry panel which found him guilty of misconduct in the cash discovery matter. The in-house inquiry panel report indicted Justice Varma over the discovery of a huge cache of burnt cash from his official residence during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge. The plea does not reveal Justice Varma's identity and is titled, "XXX v. The Union of India". Posing sharp questions to the judge, the top court asked Justice Varma why he appeared before the in-house inquiry committee and did not challenge it then and there. It told Justice Varma that he should have come earlier to the apex court against the in-house inquiry panel's report. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih said the in-house process was put in place in 1999 and the chief justice of India (CJI) cannot be considered as a mere post office. "The Chief Justice of India is not supposed to be a post office only. He has certain duties to the nation as the leader of the judiciary. If material comes to him regarding misconduct, he is only to inform the president and the prime minister. Nothing more. "If on the basis of the material, it is found that misdemeanour is so serious calling for an action, he would be affirming earlier decisions of this court that CJI has the power to do so," Justice Datta remarked orally. The top court reserved its order on Justice Varma's petition challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the CJI's recommendation for his removal. As the hearing commenced, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, referred to Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution and said it lays down a complete procedure for the removal of a judge, and any parallel or extra-constitutional mechanism falls outside the framework of the Constitution. Article 124 deals with the appointment and removal of Supreme Court judges, while Article 218 applies the same provisions to high court judges. He said the removal of a judge is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act and an in-house inquiry cannot lead to a judge's removal. Sibal submitted that the in-house inquiry panel's recommendation for his removal is unconstitutional. He said the in-house inquiry is merely an administrative procedure and it lacks the safeguards of the ?Judges Inquiry Act, 1968?, such as strict standards of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses. Stating that a recommendation for removal in this manner would set a dangerous precedent, Sibal said a recommendation for removal from the CJI "sounds the death knell" for a judge. Countering Sibal's argument, Justice Datta said three judgments have reaffirmed the in-house procedure after it came into force. The in-house procedure has its origins in the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court, Justice Datta said. When the bench asked what relief Justice Varma was seeking, Sibal replied that he wanted a declaration that the CJI's recommendation for Justice Varma's removal was "non-est" ("not existing") and unconstitutional. Justice Datta said that relief cannot stop the proceedings at this stage. Sibal said when the CJI recommends the removal of a judge on the basis of an in-house procedure which holds great persuasive value. "Since it comes from a high constitutional authority, which can influence the process in Parliament, by making such a recommendation, the CJI is interfering with the domain of Parliament," Sibal said. On the question of delay in approaching the top court, Sibal said a tape was released on the SC website and the judge's reputation was already damaged. "What would I come to court for?" he said. "The points you are raising are major, but could have been raised before, and thus your conduct does not inspire confidence and your conduct says a lot," the bench remarked. "The tapes have been put on the website. Does that mean everything is vitiated and you will go scot-free?" the bench said. "The problem is that the report emanates from the CJI's office and if I show you the statements, please see the statements by the political parties. The statements say the committee has forced us to move the motion," Sibal said. "The in-house committee report is a preliminary report and cannot affect future proceedings. We cannot go by newspaper reports," Justice Datta said. "But I cannot challenge the committee report there in Parliament," Sibal said. "If some Parliamentarian says something, even if he is a minister, it matters little," the bench added. "You have to show the violation of procedure was there by the Chief Justice of India. When you know in-house proceedings can trigger impeachment and you think only Parliament can do it, you should have come then and there," the top court said. The top court also pulled advocate Mathews J Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma. During the hearing, Justice Datta questioned Nedumpara on whether he had even approached the police with a formal complaint before seeking the registration of an FIR. It also reserved its order on a separate petition filed by Nedumpara seeking registration of an FIR.
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Nithari killings: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as many as 14 appeals against the acquittal of accused Surendra Koli in the sensational 2006 Nithari serial killings case. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran said that there was 'no perversity' in the findings of the Allahabad High Court acquitting Koli. Referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the CJI said the recovery of skulls and other belongings of the victims from an open drain was not made following the statement of Koli before the police. The bench said any recovery made without recording the statement of the accused by the police is not admissible as evidence under the Evidence law. It said only those recoveries, which are made from a place accessible to the accused only, can be admitted as evidence in a case primarily hinging on circumstantial evidence. The top court last year agreed to examine separate pleas, including those filed by the CBI and the Uttar Pradesh government, challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision acquitting Koli on October 16, 2023. One of the pleas was filed by the father of one of the victims challenging the high court's verdict. Moninder Singh Pandher and his domestic help Koli were accused of rape and murder of people, mostly children from their neighbourhood in Nithari in Uttar Pradesh. Koli was awarded the death penalty on September 28, 2010 by the trial court. The high court acquitted Pandher and Koli in the death penalty case, holding the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' and called it a 'botched up' investigation. Reversing the death sentence given to Koli in 12 cases and Pandher in two cases, the high court said the probe was 'nothing short of a betrayal of public trust by responsible agencies'.
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Nithari case: SC dismisses 14 appeals challenging acquittal of Surendra Koli
The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as many as 14 appeals against the acquittal of accused Surendra Koli in the sensational 2006 Nithari serial killings case. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran said that there was "no perversity" in the findings of the Allahabad High Court acquitting Koli. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Finance Healthcare Public Policy PGDM Cybersecurity Data Science Data Analytics Digital Marketing Management Data Science healthcare Leadership others Artificial Intelligence CXO Operations Management Technology Design Thinking Product Management MBA MCA Others Degree Project Management Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details Referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the CJI said the recovery of skulls and other belongings of the victims from an open drain was not made following the statement of Koli before the police. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Dubai villas | search ads Get Deals The bench said any recovery made without recording the statement of the accused by the police is not admissible as evidence under the Evidence law. It said only those recoveries, which are made from a place accessible to the accused only, can be admitted as evidence in a case primarily hinging on circumstantial evidence. Live Events The top court last year agreed to examine separate pleas, including those filed by the CBI and the Uttar Pradesh government, challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision acquitting Koli on October 16, 2023. One of the pleas was filed by the father of one of the victims challenging the high court's verdict. Moninder Singh Pandher and his domestic help Koli were accused of rape and murder of people, mostly children from their neighbourhood in Nithari in Uttar Pradesh. Koli was awarded the death penalty on September 28, 2010 by the trial court. The high court acquitted Pandher and Koli in the death penalty case, holding the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" and called it a "botched up" investigation. Reversing the death sentence given to Koli in 12 cases and Pandher in two cases, the high court said the probe was "nothing short of a betrayal of public trust by responsible agencies".
