RAKESH KAINTHLA
Inder Mohan Guleria – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
A complaint was made to the police that Ajay Parashar, Tehsildar, Sadar, Mandi, H.P. had purchased benami property in Mandi and Nerchowk area through property dealers and agents. One plot bearing Khasra No. 4438/3016/2701/1 was purchased in Mohal Tarna as per Mutation No. 600013, dated 17.7.2012 from Tilak Singh as a bribe. The Tehsildar had accumulated property more than his income. The police conducted the investigation and found that Khasra No. 4438/3016/2701/2, measuring 276-23 was sold vide Sale Deed No. 1173/2012, dated 17.7.2012 for Rs.8,75,000/-. Its market value was shown to be Rs.20,78,000/-. An amount of Rs.1,03,900/- was deposited on 17.7.2012. The registration fee of 2% amounting to Rs.41,500/- was not deposited on 17.7.2012 but it was deposited on 9.8.2012 after 23 days. As per the report of Tehsildar, Sadar, Mandi and statements of Pradeep Kumar and Hari Ram, Inder Mohan had prepared the plots of his land bearing Khasra No. 4438/3016/2701/2, Khasra No. 276.63 sq. mtrs. in the year 2011. A local road was constructed to these plots. Hence, the category of the plots changed from third class to first class. The market value of first-class lan
Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana
Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
Mohammed Ibrahim versus State of Bihar 2009 (8) SCC 751
Mir Nagvi Askari Vs CBI 2009 (15) SCC 643
Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration
Sheila Sebastian versus R Jawaharaj & Anr ETC. 2018 (7) SCC 581
Bandekar Bros. (P) Ltd. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.