Udaipur ACB Court Acquits Former Rajsamand Sarpanch Ramlal Kumawat and Laluram Paliwal in Corruption Case

Udaipur, October 9 (Udaipur Kiran): A special court in Udaipur has acquitted former Gram Panchayat MD sarpanch Ramlal Kumawat and Laluram Paliwal of corruption and other criminal charges in a 2014 land allotment case involving Rajsamand district. The court granted both accused the benefit of doubt, observing that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The verdict was delivered on October 6 by Arun Jain, a district judge serving as the presiding officer of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act No. 2, Udaipur.

Background of the Land Allotment Case

The case originated from FIR No. 368/2014 registered at the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) outpost in Rajsamand. It was initially registered as Special Sessions Case No. 227/2019.

According to the prosecution, on September 8, 2013, Ramlal Kumawat, who was then sarpanch of Gram Panchayat MD in Rajsamand district, issued a no-objection certificate (NOC) along with an ownership certificate to Laluram Paliwal for a plot of residential land in Survey No. 78 at Nougama village. The land measured 10 bighas and 11 biswas.

Based on the certificate, Paliwal allegedly sold a plot measuring 2,560 square feet, with dimensions of 32 by 80 feet, to Devilal Kumawat for ₹3 lakh on September 20, 2013. The sale deed was registered at the Sub-Registrar’s office in Kunwariya.

Following an inquiry conducted by Additional Chief Executive Officer Arvind Kumar Jakhar on the directions of the Rajsamand District Collector, allegations were made that the NOC had been issued without following the prescribed auction process. The alleged loss to the gram panchayat or public exchequer was calculated at ₹3,12,320 based on the 2013 District Level Committee (DLC) rate of ₹122 per square foot.

Charges Against the Accused

The ACB filed a charge sheet, numbered 92/2018, against the accused.

Ramlal Kumawat faced charges under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with Sections 409, 167 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Laluram Paliwal faced charges under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC.

Prosecution and Defence Arguments

Special Public Prosecutor Hemant Detha argued that Kumawat, while serving as a public servant, had allegedly conspired with Paliwal to issue a fraudulent NOC without conducting an auction or making the required entries in the relevant records. The prosecution alleged that the transaction caused a financial loss exceeding ₹3.12 lakh to the public exchequer.

Kumawat’s lawyer, Gopal Singh Chauhan, argued that the land had already been classified as residential land and that an NOC issued by a sarpanch did not confer ownership rights. He also argued that Kumawat had received no personal financial benefit and had been implicated as part of a political conspiracy to cover up alleged errors by the Sub-Registrar.

Paliwal’s lawyers, Ritesh Ratna Vyas and S.S. Purohit, submitted that their client had been in possession of the land for years and had applied for the relevant lease or NOC on that basis. They denied any conspiracy or illegal payment to the sarpanch.

Court Finds No Proof of Illegal Financial Benefit

After examining the case records and witness statements, the court noted that Kumawat was serving as a public servant in his capacity as sarpanch at the time of the incident.

The court observed that the NOC or certificate issued by the sarpanch was not a formal lease deed or title document and could not, by itself, legally transfer ownership of the land. Testimony from Additional Chief Executive Officer Arvind Kumar Jakhar, Panchayat Extension Officer Lalit Kumar and Municipal Council Commissioner Brijmohan Bairwa was considered in this regard.

The court also observed that the Sub-Registrar had a primary responsibility to verify the relevant documents and ascertain the status of the land before registering the sale deed.

A key consideration was the absence of evidence that Kumawat had received a bribe, commission or any other financial benefit from Paliwal in exchange for issuing the NOC. The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish such a benefit.

Supreme Court Judgment Cited

The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Khanindra Kumar Dutta v. CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 1882/2024. As outlined in the case proceedings, the judgment was cited in connection with the requirement to establish that a public servant had abused their position to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for themselves or another person under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court further observed that the absence of a copy of the NOC in the panchayat records could amount to an administrative or record-maintenance irregularity, but that fact alone did not establish the commission of a criminal offence.

Court Grants Benefit of Doubt

The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations of corruption and criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, Ramlal Kumawat and Laluram Paliwal were acquitted of the charges under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IPC, including Sections 409, 167 and 120-B, as applicable to each accused. Their bail bonds were cancelled as directed in the order.