The police on Friday arrested Ashwani Kumar, one of the three owners of Kumar Brothers, a leading chemist shop of the city, for an alleged attempt to usurp a prime plot. He was later released on a surety bond. The brothers have been booked for cheating, impersonation and criminal conspiracy after it was found that they tried to get a plot in Sector 11-D transferred in their name on the basis of a fictitious will. The plot was never even owned by their father who they claimed had willed it to them.
Ashwani’s other two brothers, Vinod and Parmod, are yet to be arrested in the case.
Meanwhile, the police have summoned estate office records learning that the brothers allegedly colluded with the estate officials to get possession of the land. The police said it was learnt that the brothers had submitted a forged will to the estate office and the latter, without verifying whether or not the site was allotted to their father Rameshwar Dass, asked the brothers to submit the liability certificate, an attested copy of the will and affidavits of the witnesses of the will, showing malafide intentions on its part to favour the accused.
Directing the assistant estate officer to get an FIR lodged, estate officer Mohammed Shayin had observed that the brothers entered into a criminal conspiracy in collusion with the staff of the estate office to usurp the property.
In 1983, the three sons of Rameshwar Dass submitted an application for the transfer of the plot in their names on the basis of an unregistered will of their father. On May 31, 1983, the estate office without verifying whether or not the site was allotted to Dass, asked the brothers to submit the liability certificate, an attested copy of the will and affidavits of the witnesses of the will.
After the communication from the estate office, the intended beneficiaries filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injection and the trial court, through its judgment on March 25, 2013, decreed the suit in their favour and directed the estate office to transfer the ownership of the plot in the names of the plaintiff.
But the UT contested the order and stated before the additional district and sessions judge that it was for the plaintiff to prove the ownership but they failed to establish it as they could neither produce the allotment letter nor the possession certificate. Ultimately, the judgment of the trial court was reversed.