Manesar land deals: No infirmity in framing of charges order by trial court
The pleas were from former CM, Bhupinder Singh Hooda’s then principal secretary, Murari Lal Tayal; then principal secretary to CM, Chhatar Singh; then director town and country planning department, Haryana, Sudeep Singh Dhillon, some builders among others. Hooda himself had not challenged the order.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that there was no infirmity in the December 1, 2020, order of CBI special court, Panchkula, whereby charges were framed against former bureaucrats and others in Manesar land deal case.
“...this court finds no infirmity, legal or procedural, in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Court. The impugned order has been rendered in accordance with settled legal principles and does not warrant interference,” the bench of justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said in the detailed judgment released of pronouncements made on May 15.
The pleas were from former CM, Bhupinder Singh Hooda’s then principal secretaries, Murari Lal Tayal and Chhatar Singh; then director town and country planning department, Haryana, Sudeep Singh Dhillon, some builders among others. Hooda himself had not challenged the order.
It was in December 2020; the CBI special court had ordered framing of charges against former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and 32 others. It was this order which was under challenge before the high court. On December 14, 2020, the trial was stayed by the high court, acting on these petitions. There was also a second set of petitions from former IAS officer Rajeev Arora and four others, challenging trial court order. Those petitions were also dismissed and dealt with in a separate judgment also pronounced on May 15.
The court observed that at the stage of framing of charges the court is not required to satisfy itself about the likelihood of conviction; it merely assesses whether the circumstances, if unrebutted, could sustain a conviction. It is precisely because at this preliminary stage, courts have repeatedly emphasised that a mini-trial or detailed evidentiary analysis is wholly inappropriate. “The framing of a charge, therefore, is not a declaration of guilt but an act to initiate the trial based on a prima facie judicial determination,” the court said.
The court took note of CBI allegations that the sequence of events reveals a systematic approach pursuant to a well-planned conspiracy between the private builders and government officials, including the then chief minister. The involvement of officials from the department of industries, HSIIDC, DTCP as well as the CM’s office, has been highlighted in the police report, it added.
About the role of Tayal, who besides principal secretary to the CM also concurrently held the charge of principal secretary, department of industries as well as chairman, HSIIDC during the period relevant, the court said, in light of evidence presented by CBI, whether he discharged his duty by adequately apprising the chief minister of all relevant considerations, or whether he failed to do so, and whether he aided in the alleged conspiracy or not. Such determinations, however, fall outside the scope of consideration at the stage of framing charges, the court said.
As for the plea from Chhatar Singh, who during the relevant period of August 2007, was holding the concurrent charge of principal secretary, department of industries, the court said, allegations levelled against the petitioner are supported by material sufficient to establish a prima facie case. As for role of Dhillon, who served as the director of the department of town and country Planning, Haryana, during the period from March 2005 to June 2009, the court said, allegations are about his purported role in irregularities concerning the grant of licences to various private developers.
The court said the evidence cited by the CBI about prima facie involvement of the petitioner needed deeper examination. “These are all matters requiring detailed evidence and trial and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of framing of charges,” it said, dismissing the plea.
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.
