New Delhi: In major relief to former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Wednesday set aside charges against the Congress leader and The Associated Journals Limited (AJL) in the long-running 2005 Panchkula land re-allotment case.
The court said the Central Bureau of Investigation’s claim of financial loss was “fictional”, and that the prosecution’s case failed to establish even a prima facie ground for criminal proceedings. It added there was no evidence of “dishonest intention” and the continuation of the trial would be a “miscarriage of justice”. “Continuation of prosecution will be an abuse of the process of court,” said Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya.
The judgement is a big win for Hooda, who has long said that the CBI case was politically motivated.
Founded by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, AJL is primarily known for publishing the newspaper daily National Herald, and its Hindi edition, Nav Jiwan.
At the centre of the case was Institutional Plot No. C-17 in Sector 6, Panchkula—originally allotted to AJL in 1982 to establish an office for National Herald. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) resumed the plot in 1992 after AJL failed to complete construction within the required timeframe. For nearly a decade, AJL’s appeals and revision petitions against this resumption were dismissed by various authorities, with the matter seemingly attaining finality in 1996 when the revision petition was dismissed.
Controversy erupted in 2005 when Congress came to power in Haryana, with Bhupinder Singh Hooda as chief minister—his first term at the helm.
Upon a request from AJL’s then-chairman Motilal Vora, Hooda—acting in his capacity as chairman of HUDA—ordered the re-allotment of the plot to AJL at the original 1982 rates plus interest, citing the organisation’s historic legacy and the public interest in publishing Nav Jiwan.
In 2014, Manohar Lal Khattar of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took over as chief minister.
Two years later, a case was registered on 5 May, 2016, under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 120-B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 13 (criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act at the Police Station State Vigilance Bureau in Panchkula.
CBI’s allegations
The case was transferred by the Khattar government to CBI, which took over the probe in 2017. It alleged that the re-allotment was a “colorable exercise of power” done for extraneous reasons.
The agency contended that Hooda had ignored the explicit advice of legal and departmental officers who suggested the plot should be re-advertised at current market rates.
The CBI argued that by allotting the land at 1982 rates, Hooda caused a wrongful loss of approximately Rs 67 lakh to the public exchequer while providing a corresponding “pecuniary advantage” to AJL. It further alleged that AJL demonstrated criminal intent by mortgaging the property for term loans of Rs 17.5 crore, years after the re-allotment.
Contentions of the petitioners
The petitioners, AJL and Hooda, approached the high court to seek quashing of the 16 April 2021 orders passed by the Special CBI Judge in Panchkula.
The trial court special CBI judge had framed criminal charges against them for conspiracy, cheating and criminal misconduct, and had simultaneously dismissed an application by Hooda seeking his discharge from the case.
The former CM argued in high court that the re-allotment was a “bona fide exercise of powers” aimed at supporting a renowned institution founded by Nehru. Hooda and AJL emphasised that the decision was not a solitary one but was “unanimously ratified” by the HUDA Authority in 2006.
AJL’s counsel maintained that the company acted in a bona fide manner, paying all demanded amounts and interests, and that the possession of the plot had effectively remained with them since 1982, as they had never encashed the refund cheque issued after the initial resumption.
High court’s reasoning
The high court judgement dismantled the prosecution’s narrative on several key fronts. It held that merely breaking a rule or policy does not automatically amount to a criminal offence, unless there is clear proof of a dishonest intent to gain money. This “dishonest intention” is the essential part of the offence, and the court found no evidence of such a motive in this case.
Using the property as security for a bank loan, the court noted, does not violate the requirement that the land must only be used for a newspaper office. Taking a loan is a standard financial action and does not mean the land is being used for a different, unapproved purpose.
A loan taken out seven years after the land was re-allotted cannot prove that the original 2005 decision was part of a criminal plot, it said. These two events occurred too far apart in time to have any logical connection to each other as evidence of a crime.
The court observed that Hooda had passed a reasoned order and that there was no material suggesting he obtained any personal gain or engaged in an agreement with AJL to intentionally cheat the authority.
“Merely because statements of some officers of the Authority or Government have been recorded to the effect that re-allotment of the plot at current rates would have fetched more money to the Authority, it cannot form a basis to contend that any loss has actually been caused. The statements are without any factual basis,” the court said.
Justice Dahiya, in a scathing rebuke to the CBI, further pointed out that the investigating agency’s claim of financial loss was “fictional”. The court highlighted that the Accountant General (Audit) had dropped objections regarding the financial loss as early as 2009 after HUDA explained the re-allotment was in the public interest.
The judgement also slammed the trial court’s assumption that the plot’s value for mortgage in 2012 could be used to calculate the loss in 2005, calling it “sheer imagination”.
A decisive factor for the court was the fact that the HUDA had unanimously ratified every step of the process, from the re-allotment to the extensions for construction.
The court found it “unfathomable” that the CBI could term the act unlawful when no court or tribunal had ever declared the re-allotment illegal, and the authority itself had never raised a grievance.
“Ignoring these vital facts of the matter, the CBI has taken upon itself to term the re-allotment illegal being violative of the 1977 Act which would, in its view, attract criminal liability under the provisions of the IPC and the PC Act invoked against the petitioners,” the court noted.
“It is unfathomable as to how the investigating agency can consider the re-allotment of plot unlawful on its own, and proceed to register a criminal case on the basis. This is absolutely illegal, and far from any procedure known to law,” it added.
Justice Dahiya remarked that the CBI’s decision to charge only the chairman (Hooda), while ignoring all other members of the authority who ratified the decision, “raises doubts about its bona fides” and suggested the investigation was carried out for “ulterior motives”.
With the setting aside of the April 2021 orders of the Special CBI Judge, both Bhupinder Singh Hooda and AJL are discharged from the case.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: How Allahabad HC came to the rescue of 12 live-in interfaith couples after UP govt’s snub