RAMESH KUMAR VOHRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions arising out of the same impugned orders, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the relevant facts and Annexures are mentioned from titled as "Ramesh Kumar Vohra Vs. State of Haryana" in subsequent portion of this judgment for ready reference in this context.

(2.) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petitions and emanating from the records (judgment Annexure P20), is that the industrial plot, bearing No.28, situated in Industrial Area Phase-1, Urban Estate, Panchkula, was initially allotted to Ved Parkash Kakria, through the medium of allotment letter dated 8.10.1973 (Annexure P1). He was stated to have sold the same to complainant Suresh Kumar Bajaj son of Avinash Bajaj and received the consideration amount, by way of agreement to sell dated 24.4.1980. The allottee also executed the general power of attorney and Will in his (proposed vendee) favour. Avinash Bajaj, father of the complainant and attorney of original allottee, wrote a letter dated 30.10.1991 (Annexure P9), requesting the Estate Officer (for short "the EO"), Haryana Urban Development Authority (for brevity "the HUDA"), to transfer the plot in the name of the complainant. He again written a letter dated 25.11.1991 (Annexure P10), requesting the EO to transfer the plot in favour of complainant Suresh Kumar Bajaj, enclosing therewith the Will, affidavit and power of attorney. He has also deposited a sum of Rs. 9200/- on 30.10.1991 in the account of CA, HUDA for transfer of the plot.

(3.) However, it was claimed by the complainant that petitioners Ramesh Kumar Vohra (EO), Daya Rani (Assistant) & Pitamber Parshotam (Superintendent), after accepting the illegal gratification and with the connivance of their other co-accused, fraudulently removed the documents and Will. Instead of transferring the plot in the name of complainant, they illegally transferred the same in the name of one Anil Kumar Kakria on 17.3.1992. It was alleged that in case, the will was not removed and allowed to remain on the file of transfer, the plot could not have been illegally transferred in the name of Anil Kumar Kakria.