
The case that sparked off an unprecedented crisis in the higher judiciary here got its stinging verdict today: the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered demolition of the Forest Hill Resorts and Country Club.
On April 19, 25 High Court judges had gone on strike after Chief Justice B K Roy served an in-house notice on two judges, Justice Viney Mittal and Justice Virender Singh, for accepting free membership of this club.
Today, a bench comprising Justice Roy and Justice Surya Kant ordered the CBI to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the violation of law in setting up the club.
The bench kept the judiciary out of the SIT’s ambit but added a rider. ‘‘We make it clear that the direction to hold a thorough probe by the SIT shall not take in its ambit the members of the judiciary. However, if during the course of investigation, the CBI finds any incriminating material against any such member it shall bring the same to the notice of the competent authority so that appropriate action in the matter can be taken’’.
The court was particularly severe on club promoter B S Sandhu. ‘‘We direct Col B S Sandhu and companies and societies floated by him to immediately close down its entire enterprise known as FHR and to demolidsh all the illegally erected buildings within a preriod of three months from today, and to hand over the management and control of the land to the state forest department,’’ the bench said.
In case Col Sandhu failed to comply with the directions, the court ordered ‘‘the authorities in the state of Punjab, in the Department of Forests, Police, Revenue and Home to close down the entire enterprise of Col Sandhu known as the FHR… floated by him at village Karoran’’ and restore the land to its original and natural condition after demolishing the illegal construction.
The Bench further directed the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Punjab to cancel the licence issued to the club and to seize Indian and foreign liquor found on the premises.
The court direected the Chairman of the PSEB ‘‘to discontinue power supply forthwith to the FHR and to recover the cost of expenditure from the FHR which was incurred by the PSEB in making the provision for electricity from the FHR’’.
Making strong observations against the top executive and bureaucratic circles, the court ruled: ‘‘The CBI which will hold a thorough probe into the question of accountability of top executive and administrative functionaries of the departments concerned of the government of Punjab, some officers of the Central Government in relation to establishment and development of the FHR, and to report as to whether any one of them indulged in taking direct or indirect gratification or acted in violation of the conduct rules. And, if it finds the commission of a cognisable offence, to register a case under the appropriate provisions of the penal law and hold investigations positively within a period of six months from today.’’
The court further directed the SIT of the CBI to ‘‘inquire into and report as to how much land is actaully owned by Col Sandhu, his family members and societies or companies floated by them, whether benami or in their own name and as to whether or not violation of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act has taken place.’’
The Bench also ordered the revenue department, government of Punjab to carry out necessary correction in the record of rights (jamabandi) regarding the forest land in Karoran village.
Observing that there had been prima-facie violation of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, the court also allowed the regular special appeals filed by the Punjab Governmet and PUDA against decrees granted to Col Sandhu by the subordinate civil courts of Kharar and Ropar. The subordinate courts had restricted demolition of the FHR.
The Bench, in the 147-page judgment, further ordered that the state forest department would take necessary steps to successfully achieve the object and purpose of the Punjab Land Preservation Act as well as the forest laws. ‘‘The forest department shall place on record of this court half-yearly reports in relation to the steps taken by them,’’ the Bench observed. The court had taken suo motu notice of the media reports regarding the violations by the FHR in the last week of January. After the hearing, the court had reserved judgment in the matter.


