The main legal point established is the necessity to involve the principal acquiring body in proceedings related to land acquisition and the protection of action taken in good faith under Section 13 of the Act of 1962.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. The subject “acquisition” of a land for public purposes, falls for consideration under schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. It is rather a subject which exclusively vests with the powers, to the acquiring body, which in the instant case happens to be the Government of India, for the purposes of enforcement of the project with which we are related to i.e. laying of gas pipeline project i.e. Karanpur, Muradabad, Kashipur, Rudrapur Gas Pipeline Project. In order to govern and regulate the acquisition proceedings, in relation to the aforesaid projects, the Government of India, vide its gazette notification of 07.12.1962 had notified an Act called as the “Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines” (Acquisition of Rights of User in Land) Act of 1962. The Act in itself provides a right of acquisition, or the use of the land for the purposes of laying down pipelines for the transportation of petroleum and mineral projects and matters connected thereto. There are various processes which has been provided therein, that in an event of acquisition of property for laying down the projects covered under the Act of 1962, the process of entering into a land and its acquisition is contained under Section 4, 5 and henceforth. As a consequence of the aforesaid project, and apparently as per the records too, a notification was issued for the purpose of utilization of the land, which was allegedly contended by respondent, that it was under a joint holding which stood recorded in the revenue records alongwith the respondent no. 3, herein and since after completion of the acquisition proceedings resulting into the disbursement of compensation, as per the provisions contained under Section 10 of the Act, the respondent no. 2, claimed her rights of being paid with the proportionate compensation, qua respondent no. 3.

2. The respondent no. 2 has contended, that since she being a co-tenure holder was also entitled to have her share of compensation determined by the respondents. Hence, she alleges malice on part of the respondent in their act of disbursement of the compensation exclusively to respondent no. 3, which is alleged to be in collusion with the officials of Gail India Limited, as undertaking of Government of India. The facts which are apparent from records is that the notification under Section 6 of the Act, was issued on 14.07.2011. As a consequence thereto, it goes without saying, that when it is notified and that too by way of a publication which was made under section 6 of the Act of 1962, its knowledge would be deemed to be attributed to the public at large, which would be inclusive of respondent no. 2 also.

3. The proceedings under section 10 of the Act, for the purposes of determination of compensation, was held and accordingly the compensation was disbursed as back as on 31.10.2010. The applicant respondent no. 2, to an application which was filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Smt. Poonam Mehra vs. Rajveer Singh and Others, which was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 281 of 2019 on 24.09.2019 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, it was on the ground that there was a collusion between the authorities of the applicant herein and the Mr. Rajveer Singh, one of the co-sharers and its with their collusion, that the entire compensation has been made to be disbursed to one of the co-sharers i.e. responding no. 3 herein. Hence, an application of 24.09.2017, was instituted for drawing a criminal proceedings, as against the opposite parties mentioned therein which according to the respondent caveator, who opposes the present 482-application were the officials of the present applicant, who were impleaded therein by name.

4. On perusal of the application under section 156 (3), where the allegations has been raised for the purposes of drawing of criminal proceedings under subsection (3) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C. The choice of selection of parties to the proceedings, was e