High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Summoning Orders In Land Scam Case Involving Ex-Haryana CM Bhupendra Singh Hooda

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a series of petitions challenging the summoning orders issued in the high-profile Manesar land scam case, which involves former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupendra Singh Hooda. The petitions were filed by various accused seeking relief from the criminal proceedings initiated by a special CBI court. 

The trial against Hooda, bureaucrats, and builders were stayed in December 2020 after accused Rajeev Arora, D.R. Dhingra, Dhare Singh,  Kulwant Singh Lamba had approached the High Court. 

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "Once cognizance of the offence has been taken in accordance with law, the subsequent summoning of persons as accused under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C.—based on scrutiny of the material on record—does not necessitate the application of a later prospective amendment to Section 19 of the PC Act. Thus, the amendment requiring sanction for retired public servants does not retrospectively apply to the present case."

The Court rejected the submission with respect to the Government officer Rajeev Arora that the the Special Court had issued a directive to the competent authority mandating the grant of sanction under the PC Act.

Perusing, the Special Court's order, the Court found that, "Special Court did not issue any binding or peremptory command to the competent authority to accord sanction. Rather, the Court merely directed the investigating agency (CBI) to submit the relevant material gathered during investigation to the appropriate sanctioning authority for its consideration, in accordance with Section 19 of the PC Act."

Such a direction is procedural in nature and intended solely to facilitate compliance, with the statutory requirement of obtaining prior sanction before initiating prosecution against a public servant, it added.

Court Cannot Direct To Grant Sanction

The Court made it clear that while a Court may require that the process for obtaining sanction be set in motion or expedited, it cannot direct the grant of sanction itself, which is no doubt, an administrative function, requiring an independent and objective application of mind by the competent authority.

"Any inference that the Court has directed the grant of sanction is plainly untenable and stems from a misreading of the order. The direction neither curtails the discretion of the competent authority nor fetters its decision-making process," added the judge.

Amendment (Sanction Now Required For Retired Officer) In Prevention Of Corruption Act Not Applicable On Cognisance Taken Prior To Amendment

The Court also rejected the submission that amendment to Section 19 of the PC Act, which came into effect from 26.07.2018, sanction for prosecution is now required even in respect of retired public servants, and therefore, in the absence of such sanction, the cognizance taken by the Special Court vide the impugned order is vitiated.

"While it is correct that the amendment to Section 19(1) of the PC Act now extends the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution even to retired public servants, the same would not apply to the facts of the present case," the Court opined.

It added that the Cognizance in the matter was taken by the learned Special Court on 16.03.2018, which was prior to the enforcement of the said amendment on 26.07.2018. "It is a settled position in law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender."

Therefore, the Court said that the subsequent summoning of the petitioners as additional accused after the amendment does not invalidate the earlier cognizance taken of the offence itself.

Protection Under Article 20(3) Not Applicable On  Witnesses 

Article 20 (3) states that, "no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”.

The bench clarified that the protection under Article 20(3) will not be applicable on accused Dhare Singh, summoning of the petitioners who were cited as prosecution witnesses amounts to compelling them to incriminate themselves, thereby infringing their rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

For the protection of Article 20(3) to apply, two essential conditions must be satisfied : (i) the person must be accused of an offence, and (ii) there must be compulsion to be a witness against oneself.

The Court found that in the present case, when the petitioners rendered their statements before the investigating agency, they were not accused persons within the meaning of law.

"There is no element of coercion or compulsion in the making of their statements. At that stage, they were merely witnesses, and not persons formally accused of any offence."

In the light of the above, the Court dismissed all the petitions challenging the the order passed by the Special Court in summoning the petitioners.

About Manesar Land Scam As Per Police Report

The Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on August 27, 2004, to acquire around 912 acres of land in the villages of Manesar, Naurangpur, and Lakhnaula in Gurugram for developing an Industrial Model Township. Following this, private builders and property dealers allegedly manipulated the situation by pressuring farmers into selling their land at undervalued rates—around Rs. 20–25 lakhs per acre—by creating fear of forced acquisition at low compensation. While some farmers who initially resisted later managed to sell their land at significantly higher prices (up to Rs. 1.5 crores per acre), a major portion had already been sold cheaply.

Later, on August 24, 2007, the Director of the Department of Industries passed an order releasing the land from acquisition, allegedly in violation of government policy and in favour of private builders rather than the original landowners. As per the allegations, around 400 acres were acquired by these private entities for Rs. 100 crores—far below the estimated market value of Rs. 1,600 crores—causing a notional loss of approximately Rs. 1,500 crores to the original landowners and enabling massive illegal gains to politicians, officials, and their associates.

 Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and for the petitioner in CRR-1306-2020.

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR-1321-2020.

Mr. Randeep S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR-1322-2020.

Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR-363-2021.

Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-CBI.

 Title: Rajeev Arora v. Central Bureau of Investigation 

Click here to read/download the order