2009 Supreme(SC) 143

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL
Surendra Kumar Bhatia
Versus
Kanhaiya Lal & Others
Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP [Criminal] No.3173 of 2006) [With Crl.A.No.175 of 2009 [@ SLP [Crl.] No.6213 of 2006]
Decided on : 30-01-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Collector acting under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is neither a Judge under section 19, IPC nor does he act judicially when discharging any of the functions under the LA Act. He is not entitled to protection u/s 77 IPC.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 77 r/w section 19 – Section 19 defines a judge – Such Judges acting judicially – Entitled to protection under Section 77 – Collector acting under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is neither a Judge under section 19, IPC nor does he act judicially when discharging any of the functions under the LA Act – Not entitled to protection u/s 77. (Para 15, 16)

       1905 (32) Indian Appeals 93; (1962) 1 SCR 676; (1974) 2 SCC 316; (1980) 2 SCC 1; (2003) 3 SCC 128; (2004) 10 SCC 745 – Relied upon

       AIR 1932 Pat. 134 – Cited with approval

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – FIR on behalf of appellants concerned with 20 bighas of land – Respondents no. 1 and 2 not with that land – They are only concerned with 13 bighas of land other than the said 20 bighas of land -0 No infirmity in quashing of FIR against them – FIR against Special Officer however relating to collusion between Kailash Chand and the Special Officer of the Board, in regard to 20 bighas of land – Ought not be quashed. (Para 19)

       1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335; (2006) 6 SCC 736; (2007) 12 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       One Chauthmal is said to have entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.8.1980 followed by an agreement dated 24.11.1988 agreeing to sell 20 bighas of land in Khasra No.9 in Sukhalpura village to Shiva Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The said agreement is said to have confirmed (i) that payment of the entire price of 20 bighas of land was made by the society to Chauthmal; (ii) that possession of the land agreed to be sold was delivered to the society; and (iii) that out of 20 bighas agreed to be sold, 5 bighas of land stood in the name of other persons and Chauthmal would ensure that an agreement was executed by them also in favour of the society in regard to that extent.

       Some lands in Sukhalpura village, including 31 bighas in Khasra No.9, were acquired for a housing scheme floated by Rajasthan Housing Board. Khasra No.9 was shown as ‘Sivaya Chak (government land) in the said notification and possession thereof was delivered to the Housing Board on 13.6.1988.

       Chauthmal is said to have filed a revenue suit for a declaration that Khasra No.9 was not government land and that he was one of the owners of the said land and for consequential reliefs. The said suit was decreed on 10.9.1986, and was affirmed by the Revenue Board, Ajmer. In pursuance of it, the following five persons were shown as owners of Khasra No.9 in the revenue records, their share being shown in brackets : Chauthmal (15/33), Mohanlal (2/33), Geeta Devi (2/33), Kaushaliya Devi (1/33) and Kanhaiyalal (13/33).

       The State Government formulated a scheme enabling the land owners to opt for allotment of developed land equal to 15% of acquired land in lieu of the compensation for the acquired land.

       One Kailash Chand claiming to be the successor (legatee) of Chauthmal claimed allotment of developed land in lieu of 15 bighas of acquired land. The society also filed an application before the Board on 21.12.2001 claiming compensation in respect of 20 bighas in Khasra No.9 on the basis of the agreement of sale. The claim of the society was rejected on 8.7.2002.

       The power of attorney holders of four owners of Khasra No.9 (Kailash Chand, Mohanlal, Geeta Devi and Kanhaiyalal) entered into separate agreements with the Housing Board, consenting for allotment of developed land (15% of the extent of the acquired land) in lieu of compensation. A settlement award was passed by the Special Officer of Rajasthan Housing Board recording the agreement to allot 15% developed land in lieu of compensation in respect of 28 bighas 17 Biswas in Khasra No.9.

       The appellant on behalf of the Board lodged an FIR alleging that the Khatedars/Power of Attorney holders of Khasra No. 9 had made false representations to the Board, and in collusion with the Special Officer of the Board and office bearers of the society, had fraudulently obtained allotment pattas in the year 2002.

       First respondent herein who claimed to be the owner of 13 bighas in Khasra No.9 and respondent No. 2 herein who was his attorney holder, filed a petition under section 482 of the Code for quashing the FIR on the ground that the averments made in the FIR did not make out a prima facie case against them, even if the allegations in the FIR was taken to be true.

       The High Court allowed the said petition.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court has taken a view which is not correct.

       Result:

       Appeals allowed.