The Supreme Court on Monday quashed a first information report (FIR) registered against Goa MLA Jit Vinayak Arolkar in a case related to alleged land grabbing and fraudulent sale of property.
The Bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal filed by Arolkar against the Bombay High Court verdict, which refused to quash the cheating case registered against him.
Complainant Rawloo Khalap alleged that Arolkar, a leader of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party, sold a property of which Khalap was the co-owner, and cheated him of Rs 25.6 crore.
The sale deed was finalised between 2013 and 2018 without proper conversion of land, sub-division, or development of the entire property, Khalap added in his complaint.
Arolkar claimed that he was acting as a power of attorney holder for two other co-owners, adding that Khalap was not an owner.
The High Court rejected Arolkar’s petition on the grounds that Khalap’s name and that of his ancestors appeared in the survey records.
Arolkar submitted that the dispute was civil in nature, however, the High Court turned down this argument and allowed a special investigation team to carry on with the probe.
Arolkar then moved the Supreme Court.
The post appeared first on .
The Bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal filed by Arolkar against the Bombay High Court verdict, which refused to quash the cheating case registered against him.
Complainant Rawloo Khalap alleged that Arolkar, a leader of the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party, sold a property of which Khalap was the co-owner, and cheated him of Rs 25.6 crore.
The sale deed was finalised between 2013 and 2018 without proper conversion of land, sub-division, or development of the entire property, Khalap added in his complaint.
Arolkar claimed that he was acting as a power of attorney holder for two other co-owners, adding that Khalap was not an owner.
The High Court rejected Arolkar’s petition on the grounds that Khalap’s name and that of his ancestors appeared in the survey records.
Arolkar submitted that the dispute was civil in nature, however, the High Court turned down this argument and allowed a special investigation team to carry on with the probe.
Arolkar then moved the Supreme Court.
The post appeared first on .