
| Font Size |



On December 11, the High Court gave a clean chit to Bachchan in a case pertaining to alleged fraudulent allotment of Gram Samaj land to him in Barabanki district, about 40 km from Lucknow. The ruling gave a much-needed relief to the mega star who he was completely cornered in the blatant land scam case.
His wife and Rajya Sabha member from Samajwadi Party Jaya Bachchan, too, had heaved a sigh of relief after the court order. A Congress leader from Barabanki had lodged a complaint that Jaya had concealed this information in her nomination papers that her husband owned land in Daulatpur village.
The Election Commission had ordered a probe and she could have faced disqualification if the charges against Amitabh Bachchan were proved in the court.
The single bench of Justice A N Verma, absolving Bachchan of the criminal charges, had ruled that since the actor had already relinquished his claim over the land, all criminal proceedings against him be dropped.
The court had however agreed that the fraudulent entries made in the land records be corrected and the land be restored to the Gram Sabha.
The UP government’s chief standing counsel Devendra Upadhaya termed the verdict as “contradictory “. He said: “I have advised the state to appeal against the order in the apex court.”
The district magistrate of Barabanki had charged Bachchan with committing “forgery” and “fraud” by getting his name entered in the official revenue records as the legitimate allottee of around 2.75 bighas of land (about 70,000 sq ft) in Daulatpur village of the district.
The divisional commissioner of Faizabad, where Bachchan had filed an appeal, had upheld the Barabanki DM’s order of March 24, 2006, ruling that the land transfer in Bachchan’s name was illegal.
In June 2007, the commissioner also ordered to start criminal proceedings against the Bachchan.
The actor had alleged that he was being hounded by the Mayawati administration because of his proximity with SP leaders.
Consequently, Bachchan filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking relief from any criminal action. He also pleaded before the court that both the district magistrate and the commissioner had passed the verdict against him without giving him an opportunity to be heard.


Discuss this story on expressindia forums
|
|

