Bathinda, February 12
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surinder Mohan, today issued fresh summons to Punjab Chief Minister, Mr Parkash Singh Badal, Science and Technology Minister, Mr Chiranji Lal Garg, and Mr Ajaib Singh Bhatti, Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, in a civil suit filed against them in connection with the alleged grabbing of 400 acres, for securing their personal appearance on March 7.
The Magistrate issued the summons as the earlier summons issued against these three persons on January 31 could not be served. Mr N.K. Garg, advocate, who had filed a civil suit against them in the court last month.
Mr Garg mentioned in his application that he had filed that a civil suit against Mr Chiranji Lal Garg, respondent No. 1, Mr Ajaib Singh Bhatti No. 2, and Mr Parkash Singh Badal, No. 3 under Section 340 of the Cr PC that the honourable court may make a complaint under Sections 193, 196, 465, 471 and 120-B of the IPC against the respondents.
In the petition, Mr Garg had alleged that respondent No. 1, Mr Chiranji Lal Garg, purchased a plot measuring 1800 square yards in 1970 in Khasra No. 2848, which was a shamlat land through a bogus transaction. He filed a civil writ petition in the High Court alleging false facts and concealing material facts and the writ petition was allowed in terms of decision given in the writ petition No. 869/81.
Later on the respondent No. 1 got the mutation sanctioned on 1.12.1983 on the basis of the decision of the High Court, whereas it never ordered the sanction of the mutation. The decision of the High Court was vacated by the Supreme Court on 5.5.1987 and the respondent No. 1 lost the case in SLP No. 2225/84. The Punjab Government acquired 400 acres for setting up Phase III of Urban Estate, Bathinda, and notification under Section 4 was issued in 1976. The land measuring 1800 square yards of respondent No. 1 was also acquired in the above said notification.
He added that the respondents’ No. 1 to 3 allowed encroachments of the above said 400 acres illegally, wrongfully and fraudulently and indulged in land-grab scam. The respondents No. 1 to 3 were relying upon the overruled judgement of the High Court. They had procured forged and fabricated documents. The officials of PUDA were not filing written statement and were supporting the case of respondent No. 1 knowingly and fraudulently. They had scant respect for the decision of the Supreme Court.
