Hooda, AJL discharged in Panchkula plot case; HC slams CBI prosecution

The case relates to institutional plot No. C-17 in Sector 6, Panchkula, allotted in 1982 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (now Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran) to AJL. The plot was resumed in 1992 after construction was not completed within the stipulated period. AJL’s appeal and revision petitions were dismissed in 1995 and 1996.

In 2005, shortly after Hooda assumed office as chief minister, the plot was re-allotted to AJL at the original rates. Following a change of government in 2014, a vigilance inquiry led to the registration of an FIR, later handed over to the CBI. The agency alleged that the re-allotment was illegal, caused financial loss to the authority and conferred undue benefit on AJL.

Charges were framed in 2021 under Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prompting Hooda and AJL to approach the High Court.

Justice Dahiya held that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on the allegation that Hooda had abused his official position in 2005 to secure re-allotment of the plot to AJL in violation of statutory provisions. However, the court found no material to establish conspiracy, cheating, wrongful gain or wrongful loss.

The Bench noted that the re-allotment order dated August 28, 2005 was subsequently ratified by the competent authority on May 16, 2006. The decision was neither reviewed nor set aside by any court or tribunal and was fully implemented. AJL paid the re-allotment price and extension fee, completed construction and obtained an occupation certificate in 2014.

The court observed that no authority had claimed any financial loss, nor had AJL been asked to compensate for any alleged damage. Even audit objections regarding financial loss had been dropped.

On the charge of conspiracy, the Bench said there was no evidence of any agreement or meeting of minds between Hooda and AJL. The documents relied upon by the CBI indicated that the decision was taken on official advice and in an administrative capacity.

Addressing the Prevention of Corruption Act charges, the court held that abuse of official position presupposes an unlawful act. Since the re-allotment had never been declared illegal and stood ratified, the essential ingredients of the offence were missing.

The court also rejected the CBI’s contention that AJL’s subsequent mortgage of the property indicated criminal intent, noting that the mortgage was executed with prior consent of the authority and several years after the re-allotment.

Holding that the basic elements of offences under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act were not made out even prima facie, the court termed the trial court’s order “perverse” and said it had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

With this ruling, Hooda and AJL stand discharged in a case that had remained one of the most politically sensitive matters arising from his tenure as chief minister.