IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.
K.Venkatachalam Chetty - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 7020 of 2014
Decided On : 06-09-2023
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - LAND ACQUISITION - Sec. 420 IPC, Sec. 11-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sec. 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court discussed the abuse of process of court in the context of land acquisition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A.1 under Sec. 420 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings against him for an offence under Sec. 420 IPC related to the alleged illegal sale of land acquired for industrial development.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance with Sec. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act and Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It concluded that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and quashed them.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the land acquisition proceedings, the possession of the land, and the abuse of process in initiating criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance with statutory provisions, and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process as the dispute was of a civil nature.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A.1 in Crime No.123 of 2014 of Palamaner Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offence under Sec. 420 IPC.
JUDGMENT
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA,J. - In this Criminal Petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") the petitioner/A.1 seeks to quash the criminal proceedings against him in Crime No.123 of 2014 of Palamaner Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offence under Sec. 420 IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The facts in issue are that APIIC/Government have acquired the lands in Sy.No.532-2 Ac.0.12 cents; Sy.No.533-4 Ac.2.44 cents; Sy.No.533-5 Ac.1.58 cents and in Sy.No.533-6 Ac.1.48 cents, through Award No.2/Genl./95-96, dtd. 18/9/1995 for establishment of the Industrial Development Area at Palamaner, Chittoor District. The said lands were handed over to APIIC by the Revenue Department on 25/2/2002 and ever since, the possession was taken and the lands were under the control of APIIC. It is further alleged that during the inspection, on 23/4/2014, the APIIC officials have observed that somebody laid fencing to the subject land and a ground breaking ceremony was performed. On enquiry, they came to know that one of the land owners namely, K.Venkatachalam Chetty, has given a power of attorney in favour of one G.Govardhan in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.1.48 cents situated in Sy.No.533/6 and they have sold the said land to 44 different persons for house sites duly making plots. The Sub-Registrar, Palamaner entertained the illegal activity and accepted for registration of the said plots in their favour. As such, the present complaint was filed for taking action against the petitioner/A.1 and two others.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government intended to acquire the land to an extent of Ac.14.54 cents situated in different survey numbers at Palamaner Village and Mandal and some lands of Nagamangalam and issued a Draft Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 21/1/1993. He would further submit that under Sec. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, within two years from the date of the notification, award has to be passed, whereas, in the present case, award has been passed beyond two years. Later, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner questioning the land acquisition proceedings was also dismissed by this Court on 23/7/2001. He would further submit that after lapse of 20 years, in order to cover up their laches, a false and fictitious complaint has been lodged on 15/5/2014 by the 2nd respondent. Further, he would submit that the petitioner/A.1 has not received any compensation for the land said to have been acquired in Sy.No.533/6. Even according to the Government, the petitioner is the owner of the subject land. He would further submit that the dispute is of civil nature and is to be decided by a competent Civil Court and the 2nd respondent initiated the present criminal proceedings by giving the colour of criminal offence and therefore, the ingredients of Sec. 420 IPC are not attracting against the petitioner and hence, the proceedings in the above crime are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the land to an extent of Ac.1.48 cents in Sy.No.533/6 has been acquired by APIIC/Government for establishment of the Industrial Development Area at Palamaner and in this connection, land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer and a Draft Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was submitted to the Government and the notification was published. Further, he would submit that since the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, was authorized to perform the functions of the Collector to conduct enquiry under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, he invited objections from the respective land owners and their objections were overruled and petitioner's land was acquired for establishment of Industrial Development Area and an Award was p
Prof.R.K.Vijayasarathy and another Vs. Sudha Seetharam and another
AI
The main legal point established is that the abuse of process of court in the context of land acquisition can lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings.
The FIR became infructuous due to the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the LARR Act, leaving no legal basis for the charges against the petitioners.
The court held that land acquisition proceedings lapsed as the award was not made within two years, violating statutory provisions and infringing constitutional rights.
Allowing criminal proceedings to continue, without there being any criminal element, is not permissible and it amounts to abuse of process of law.
Point of law: when a dispute essentially of a civil nature is given the cloak of criminal offence and if a civil remedy is available, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedi....
Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not permit quashing proceedings when prima facie evidence of a crime is present, mandating a trial to ascertain truth.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.