Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Nirmal vs Competent Authority (Land Acq)Anr on 24 July, 2012
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANT AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3474/2012 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 2870/2012 Smt. Nirmala Versus Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) and Additional District Collector (Ceiling), Bundi, Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order : 24th July, 2012 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Satya Narayan Kumawat, for the petitioner. Mr. M.D. Agarwal, for the respondent. BY THE COURT:-
The facts of the case are that a Notification under Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956 (hereinaftter to be referred in short 'Act of 1956') was issued for acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of four lane road on the National Highway No.12, Kota-Deoli-Jhalawar 169-860 kilometer to 205-290 kilometer, and it came to be published in the Gazette on 30th October, 2009. The petitioner's land bearing khasra no. 160 admeasuring 0.1100 hectare situated in village Shola Ki Jhopadia, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi was also included in the aforesaid Notification. The Additional District Collector (Ceiling), Bundi, was appointed as Competent Authority for the purpose of processing the land acquisition notified as per the statutory provisions. The Competent Authority having conducted preliminary investigation and after deciding the objections as filed by the interested persons, sent its report under Sub-section 1 of Section 3(D) of the Act, 1956. Accordingly, declaration under Sub-section 2 of Section 3(D) of the Act, 1956 came to be issued by the Central Government and land thereupon vested in the Central Government. In the course of determining the compensation for the land acquired on the basis of documents submitted by the petitioner as a person interested, the land acquired was indicated to be commercial. Thereupon, compensation under award dated 9th May, 2011 came to be determined by the Competent Authority for a sum of Rs. 63,13,450/- payable to the petitioner treating his acquired land to be commercial land.
2. It appears that owing to certain irregularities in the determination of compensation in the course of acquisition of land having come to the notice of the National Highway Authority of India, all acquisitions of land for extension of National Highway No. 12 in issue were reviewed and it was found that in the case of the petitioner, even while the National Highway Authority of India had acquired land within 35 meters from the central line of the existing road, the plot of the petitioner which had been converted for commercial use and for setting the Petrol Pump lay beyond 35 meters and thus, no part of commercial land had been acquired. It was thus apparent that even while the land acquired from the petitioner was agricultural in nature yet compensation had been determined treating it to be commercial on the say of the petitioner and the documents submitted by him.
3. In these circumstances, a notice dated 18th November, 2011 was issued by the Competent Authority to the petitioner. The petitioner was informed that the compensation of Rs. 63,13,450/- determined under the award dated 9th May, 2011 and paid to the petitioner was excessive, irregular and illegal and occasioned by the misrepresentations of the petitioner in the course of proceedings for determination of compensation. The petitioner was called upon to appear before the Competent Authority on 8th December, 2011 with any objections to the proposed action of the National Highway Authority of India to vary the award or otherwise, the award dated 9th May, 2011 was liable to be reviewed by the Competent Authority. Following the notice dated 18th November, 2011, the petitioner instead of filing a reply to the specific case of National Highway Authority of India warranting the modification of the award for the reasons detailed in the notice fudged the matter and moved an application before the respondent Competent Authority on 14th December, 2011 requesting that certain documents be supplied to the petitioner to facilitate the filing of the reply to the notice dated 18th November, 2011. A reply also appears to have been filed. Competent Authority thereupon proceeded to review the award dated 9th May, 2011 by its order dated 23rd November, 2011 and reduced the compensation awarded to the petitioner and held that in view of the nature of the petitioner's acquired land being agricultural (within 35 meters of the central line of the road) the petitioner was entitled to the payment of compensation only in a sum of Rs. 3,33,082/- and remaining amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 59,80,368/- was liable to be recovered from the petitioner. It was stated that in the event of failure to deposit the said amount overpaid consequent to the petitioner's misrepresentation, it would be recoverable in accordance with the provisions of Land Revenue Act along with 12.5% interest thereon from the date of the order. The order dated 23rd November, 2011 is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not responsible for submitting false and fabricated documents or misrepresentation of any kind. He submits that instead the documents were forged and fabricated by the officers of National Highway of Authority of India. On a query by the court as to why the officers of the National Highway Authority of India would forge the documents with regard to the sitement of the Petrol Pump when the beneficiary of the amount of Rs. 59,80,368/- would be the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner had no satisfactory reply.
4. Aside of the factual dispute as to in what circumstances forged documents were submitted to the National Highway Authority of India wrongly indicating the sitement of Petrol Pump being within 35 meters of the central line of the road under acquisition, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Competent Authority under the Act, 1956 had no jurisdiction to review its own order. He submits that if at all the Competent Authority was aggrieved of the award dated 9th May, 2011, instead of a review without jurisdiction, it could seek its remedy under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, 1956 (for re-determination of the compensation already awarded) by the Arbitrator. Counsel submit that the proceedings under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, 1956 not having been taken by the National Highway Authority of India, the award dated 9th May, 2011 for a sum of Rs. 63,13,450/- to the petitioner as compensation for his land acquired had attained finality and consequently, the notice dated 18th November, 2011 as also the order dated 23rd December, 2011 directing diminution is liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr. M.D. Agarwal counsel for the respondent National Highway Authority of India, would submit that the award dated 9th May, 2011 having been obtained by fraud, showing land acquired within 35 meters of the central line of the road as commercial and forming part of the land converted for a Petrol Pump it was liable to be reviewed. He submits that for one, the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer are administrative in nature and not quasi judicial in character and consequently, an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inherently reveiwable. For this submission, Mr. Agarwal relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. versus Sutni Sangam & Others reported in (2009) 16 SCC 1; particularly Para 25 thereto wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that The proceedings before the Land Acquisition Collector is of an administrative nature and not of a judicial or quasi judicial character. Counsel for the respondent further submits that alternatively assuming that the award is not administrative in nature but quasi-judicial, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Rajendra Singh reported in AIR 2000 SC 1165 has held that even in the absence of the power to review where an award had been obtained on the basis of fraud, the Tribunal passing the said award had the inherent powers to recall its order. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the award dated 9th May, 2011 passed by the Competent Authority having been based on the fraud of showing the Petrol Pump of the petitioner as falling within 35 meters of the central line of the road (entailing determination of compensation on the basis of commercial land being acquired) was plainly vitiated by fraud. He submits that in Rejoinder to Para 11 of the reply to the petition, the petitioner has himself admitted to the factum of the Petrol Pump in Khasra No. 160 falling beyond 35 meters from the central line of National Highway. He submits that in this view of matter, it is quite apparent that the fraud in determination of compensation stands admitted and consequently, the Competent Authority had the power to even recall the award dated 9th May, 2011 and pass a modified award. Counsel submits that the present case is a serious case of defrauding the National Highway Authority of India to an extent approximately to the sum of Rs. 59,80,368/-.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as also the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
7. In my considered opinion, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the award dated 9th May, 2011 could not have been reviewed by the Competent Authority is foreclosed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. versus Sutni Sangam & Others (supra) as also for the inherent power attributed to all courts and Tribunals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Rajendra Singh (supra) to recall orders obtained by fraud. In my considered opinion, the present case is of defrauding public revenues of approximately Rs. 59,80,368/-. Fraud in obtaining the award dated 9th May, 2011 the first instance on the basis of pleadings before this Court is quite clearly established. It is now the admitted case of the petitioner that Petrol Pump falls beyond 35 meters of the central line of the road in issue and that the land acquired was within 35 meters. Consequently, the land acquired was not converted for commercial user. The Competent Authority was led into determination of compensation for the land acquired as commercial on the basis of submission of forged and fabricated documents, which the counsel for the petitioner has emphatically submitted were not the doing of the petitioner but that of the officers of National Highway Authority of India.
8. In my considered opinion, therefore, the case set up by the petitioner has no merit and is baseless and the writ petition challenging the modified award dated 23rd December, 2011 is liable to be dismissed.
9. Before ending with the judgment, I am of the view that where cases of gross fraud affecting public revenues come to the notice of this Court, there should be a direction for lodging of a First Information Report to ensure investigation for going to the root of the fraud. I would therefore, direct registration of First Information Report with regard to forged documents filed before the Competent Authority in the instant case, for determination of the compensation, for ascertaining as to who is responsible for the forgery and submission of forged documents to defraud public revenues. A copy of this order be sent by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) to the concerned Superintendent of Police to ensure that a First Information Report with regard to fraud in the present case is recorded and proper and fair investigation carried out thereon within a period of six months.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application also dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA),J.
Mak/-
140All Corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Anil Makawana Jr. Personal Assistant