Manesar land scam: Court to rule on charges against 3 more accused
Panchkula: In a significant development in the Manesar land scam, a special CBI court has opted to first decide on framing charges against three more people before consolidating the chargesheet against former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda and 30 others.
Special CBI Judge Rajiv Goyal made the ruling last Friday, following the Punjab and Haryana high court's vacation of a stay on proceedings. The three individuals facing potential charges are former IAS officer D R Dhingra and private persons Dhare Singh and Kulwant Singh Lamba. The court has scheduled July 10 for resumed arguments regarding the chargesheet against this trio.
The extensive case implicates former CM Hooda, his three ex-principal secretaries – Murari Lal Tayal (also facing another trial), S S Dhillon, and Chhattar Singh – as well as various companies and their office bearers involved in the controversial land transactions.
The Supreme Court has stayed proceedings against another accused bureaucrat, Rajiv Arora, who was named in the initial chargesheet.
The scam revolves around 914 acres of land in Manesar, Gurugram district, originally slated for acquisition to develop an Industrial Model Township (IMT). Following the Aug 2004 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, a rush to acquire land at low prices ensued. Builders and land mafia reportedly capitalised on residents' panic, acquiring plots at "throwaway rates".
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn
IC Markets
Đăng ký
Undo
In 2007, the industrial department released the land from the acquisition process.
Allegations of political patronage in the builder-official-land mafia nexus led aggrieved parties to court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed the CBI to probe the matter, leading to the chargesheet naming former CM Hooda.
MSID:: 121731795 413 |
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Fourth of July fireworks: Here's how Trump's tariffs can take the spark out of it this year
Fourth of July, referred to as Independence Day in the US, is celebrated by Americans in different ways, with one of the major highlights being the fireworks. This year, people might have to spend extra on them due to the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, NPR reported. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House after a Supreme Court ruling curbing judges' power in a case tied to birthright citizenship.(REUTERS) Julie Heckman, executive director of the American Pyrotechnics Association, anticipates that people will get a "little less bang" this time. A major reason behind this is that the US is completely dependent on China when it comes to fireworks. These include rockets, fountains, and other items that are used in large numbers by Americans to mark Independence Day. How are Trump's tariffs affecting Fourth of July fireworks? China, a major fireworks supplier across the globe, manufactures 99 per cent of the backyard consumer fireworks as well as 90 per cent of the professional display fireworks for the US market, said Heckman, adding that the country was the "sole source" for fireworks supplies for America. Earlier this year, fireworks were hit by double and triple-digit tariffs by the Trump administration, much like several other things that the country imports from China. During Trump's maiden term, fireworks remained outside the purview of the trade war. The problem is serious this time, forcing some of the fireworks importers to halt deliveries so that they can avoid import taxes on them. Heckman told NPR that there are chances that people might get to witness shortages in product supplies this time. He has even advised customers to be early birds to get the best variety. Few brands, such as the American Fireworks Company, stockpiled fireworks much before the Trump-imposed tariffs came into effect. However, they ended up with a volatile season. John Sorgi, whose great-grandfather started American Fireworks Company, said they have changed product prices four times. Fireworks concern stretches into 2026 Not just 2025, the fireworks industry remains concerned about 2026 as well, when the Fourth of July will be a Saturday, meaning they can expect a jump in sales. The occasion marks the 250th Independence Day of the US. In the US, fireworks from China are being taxed at 30 per cent. This could reach April 2025's level of 145 per cent if no trade agreement is reached. FAQs 1. What actually happened on the 4th of July 1776? On this day, the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence. 2. What is the Fourth of July supposed to represent? This day marks the declaration of America as an independent state after breaking away from British rule. 3. What is the July 4th celebration for? Independence Day, popularly known as the Fourth of July, is a federal holiday in the US.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
State govt to challenge Vamshi's anticipatory bail in illegal mining case
Vijayawada: The state government has decided to challenge in the Supreme Court the anticipatory bail granted to former Gannavaram MLA Vallabhaneni Vamshi Mohan in connection with an illegal mining case that allegedly caused huge losses to the state exchequer. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The Gannavaram police registered a case based on a complaint regarding illegal mining activities that reportedly occurred between 2019 and 2024 in and around the Gannavaram constituency. Several individuals, including Vamshi Mohan, have been named as accused, with charges under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 471, 447, 379, 120B read with 34, and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. Vamshi Mohan, already in judicial custody for other alleged offences, sought anticipatory bail from the high court after police filed a prisoner transit (PT) warrant. The high court granted him conditional anticipatory bail, allowing the police to proceed with their investigation. Following this, the police submitted a report to the government, and the public prosecutor recommended filing an appeal. Acting on this advice, the state government on Saturday issued a government order (GO), instructing the special officer and the state's advocate on record to initiate the process of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Major takeaways from Supreme Court curbing federal judges' power, handing Trump major victory on executive authority
The Supreme Court delivered a major victory to President Donald Trump on Friday, sharply limiting federal judges' authority to block presidential policies through nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that such sweeping orders 'likely exceed the equitable authority' granted to courts, calling them a 'conspicuously nonexistent' practice for most of US history. While the case stemmed from challenges to Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies of undocumented or temporary residents, the Court deliberately avoided ruling on the order's constitutionality. Instead, Barrett emphasized that courts cannot exercise 'general oversight of the Executive Branch,' effectively dismantling a key check on presidential power that had blocked dozens of Trump's policies. The immediate impact creates legal limbo for birthright citizenship: The policy could take effect in 28 non-challenging states after a 30-day window, potentially creating a 'patchwork' system where citizenship rules differ by state. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, read aloud in a rare display of protest, blasted the majority for enabling 'gamesmanship' and issuing 'an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution'. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson similarly warned the ruling permits the executive to 'violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' concluding her dissent without the traditional 'respectfully' as a pointed rebuke. The Court suggested challengers pivot to class-action lawsuits, a path immigration advocates immediately pursued in Maryland and New Hampshire filings. Trump celebrated the decision as a 'monumental victory' against 'radical left judges,' while Attorney General Pam Bondi denounced 'rogue judges' who had issued 35 injunctions against Trump policies from just five districts. Legally, the ruling empowers Trump to revive stalled policies like transgender healthcare and refugee resettlement. However, constitutional scholars warn it risks 'chaotic' outcomes, including potential statelessness for newborns and conflicting state-level citizenship standards. With the Supreme Court likely to hear the birthright citizenship merits in October, the decision marks Trump's 10th emergency docket win this term, solidifying a broader pattern of judicial deference to his executive authority.
