2009 Supreme(SC) 1414

Supreme Court Of India
R.V.Raveendran and P.Sathasivam, JJ.
S.PALANI VELAYUTHAM
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU
Civil Appeal No. 5743 of 2009
Decided On : August 7, 2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
In land acquisition issuing g notice to persons ‘known or believed to be interested in the acquired land’ depends upon subjective satisfaction of the Collector.
Raising a purely legal contention in a writ petition cannot give rise to an inference that the writ petitioners had fraudulently or dishonestly or with intent to injure or annoy anyone, made any claim knowing it to be false.
If a fraud had been played on the court, the High Court ought to have made a complaint in writing through an authorised officer of the court, instead of directing respondents 1 and 2 to prosecute the parties.

Headnote:(a) Land acquisition – Collector required to issue, in addition to the public notice to all persons interested, individual notices to persons known or believed to be interested in the acquired land – Expression ‘known or believed to be interested in the acquired land’ – Depends upon subjective satisfaction of the Collector – Collector not issuing notice to appellants and respondents no. 7 to 18 as their names did not appear in revenue records – No infirmity. (Para 5, 6, 7, 8)

       (b) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Appellants and respondents 7 to 18 claiming to be vested remindermen of the acquired land – Challenging legality of acquisition for want of notice to them – Division Bench of High Court rejecting their claim – Further directing criminal action against the appellants and respondents no. 7 to 18 under relevant provisions of IPC – No finding of claim of being vested remindermen being false or fraudulent – High Court neither specifying provision of law under which action to be taken nor the offence – Writ petition seeking to enforce or protect the interests or rights of petitioners, purely based on legal contentions, cannot be termed as "playing of a fraud by the writ petitioners against the Government or court" – Criminal law cannot be set into motion against a litigant, as a matter of course – Appellant and respondent no. 7 to 18 not initiating ant legal proceeding or taking any action – Could not be ordered to be prosecuted – Lastly, High Court ought to have made a complaint in writing through an authorised officer of the court in case of fraud instead of directing respondent no. 1 and 2 to initiate criminal action against appellants and respondent no. 7 to 18. (Para 10, 11, 13, 14)

       Facts of the case:

       Certain lands were acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act. Notice regarding acquisition was served on respondents 3 to 6 who were shown as the owners of the land in the revenue records. Respondents 3 to 6 informed the Collector (first respondent) that they were only life estate holders and that the vested remindermen should be served with notice. But notice was not issued to them. On the other hand, second respondent passed an award on 3. 6. 1997. Thereafter, possession of the acquired lands was taken and made into plots and distributed to intended beneficiaries.

       Appellants1 to 4 filed a writ petition alleging that the appellants and respondents 7 to 18, who were the children of respondents 3 to 6, were the vested remindermen in regard to the said lands. They contended that the acquisition proceedings were illegal and liable to be quashed for want of notice of acquisition to the vested remindermen who were persons interested. A Single Judge of the High Court accepted the said legal contention and held that the acquisition without issue of notice to them was illegal. He therefore allowed the writ petition by order dated 13. 11. 2001 and set aside the acquisition, reserving liberty to respondents 1 and 2 to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings after appropriate notice to the writ petitioners.

       A division bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge, and dismissed the writ petition. The division bench held that the Collector was not obliged to serve the notice of acquisition on anyone other than the persons whose names were entered in the revenue records as owners; and that as the vested remindermen, had not got their names entered as holders/ owners in the revenue records, they were not entitled to any separate notice. The division bench also issued a direction to respondents 1 and 2 herein to initiate criminal action against the appellants and private respondents 7 to 18 herein "for playing fraud on the Government and the Court, for making wrongful gains by filing a writ petition which was not maintainable." The appellants have challenged the said judgment.

       Finding of the Court:

       Collector was not obliged to issue notice to anybody whose name does not appear in revenue records.

       High Court erred in directing prosecution of appellants and respondents no. 7 to 18.

       Result:

       Appeal partly allowed.