Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Jai Devi Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-10900-2017
(SMT. JAI DEVI VERMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
6
Jabalpur, Dated : 24-01-2018
Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pramod Choubey, learned GA for the respondent/State.
ORDER
sh ( .01.2018) e ad This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed to Pr invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the direction of respondent No.2 in his order dated 23/02/2017 and also to a hy quash the FIR at Crime No.40/17 dated 01/03/2017 registered at Police Station Betul Bazar, District Betul, wherein offence under ad Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC has been registered against M the petitioner and for quashing the consequential criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
of
2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for rt disposal of this petition are that, the Commissioner-cum- Arbitrator ou resolving the dispute of the petitioner and the Land Acquisition Officer, Betul, allegedly the land of the petitioner acquired for C construction of National Highway and to settle the compensation. The h arbitrator vide order dated 23/02/2017 has recommended to initiate ig criminal proceeding for fabricating the documents against the H petitioner and the Competent Officer setting aside the order dated 02/07/2012, passed by the Competent Officer/SDO, Betul on the ground that in connivance of the petitioner, the said order was passed on the basis of the document which is fabricated.
3. Subsequent thereto, FIR has been lodged at Police Station, Betul Bazar, on 01/03/2017 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 amd 120-B of IPC against the petitioner and the then SDO, Satendra Agrawal. On behalf of the petitioner, it is claimed that after the registration of FIR, charge-sheet has not been filed. It is claimed that SDO-cum-Competent Officer, Betul and the Project Director, National Highway Authority, India before whom the petitioner submitted a revised claim for compensation of the acquisition of her land by the SDO and Manager of the National Highway Authority, India (NHAI). A committee was constituted in this regard for determination of the amount of the compensation. The Committee including the Manager of NHAI and the Competent Officer visited the acquired land of the petitioner as also the Tyre Manufacturing Factory, the aircraft hanger, tyre shop and other allied structures. After the spot inspection, the committee submitted report and on the basis of such report, it was sh determined that the factory standing on the acquired land has to be e relocated. The SDO-cum-Competent Authority ordered the concerned ad officer to again visit the spot to find out whether the factory is existing Pr on the acquired land of the petitioner and of the properties standing thereon also to find out the valuation of the land and submit their a report. The Officers accordingly made spot inspection and prepared a hy Panchnama dated 15/12/2011.
ad
4. On 05/01/2012, the Competent Authority, Betul wrote a letter M to the NHAI requesting to shift the alignment of the road towards the South in order to avoid relocation of the Factory standing on the of acquired land. The Project Director with reference to letter dated 05/01/2012, submitted his reply on 18/01/2012 to the Competent rt Authority informing him that, after the publication of the notification ou issued under Section 3(d) of the National Highway Act, no changes C are permissible. He further requested the Competent Authority to get h the relocation cost from MPEB and prepare an award accordingly. ig
5. On 05/03/2012, the petitioner informed the Competent H Authority that in view of the fact that the land of the petitioner together with assets standing thereon and the notification issued under Section 3(d) of the Act, stood vested in the Central Government. The petitioner has started relocating the factory together with its machine to a new location. Photographs have enclosed in support of the same.
6. On 15/03/2012, a revised claim was submitted to the Competent Authority and to the Project Director, NHAI along with the quotations and photographs in support of the same. No objections were raised by the NHAI in respect of such revised claim of the petitioner. The claim was for Rs.79 crores in respect of her land and assets standing thereon and also for relocation of the factory.
7. On 12/04/2012, again the letter was submitted before the Competent Authority informing that, since a huge expenditure is being incurred and losses are being suffered, the petitioner request to consider these losses while determining the compensation.
8. On 14/06/2012, a joint meeting was held in the office of the Competent Authority, Betul, in which seven members including the Manager of NHAI were present. The members unanimously admitted that the factory could not run in view of the construction of NHAI sh over the acquired land of the petitioner.
e
9. On 02/07/2012, the Competent Authority prepared award of ad Rs.21.84 crores, (Ann.P/6). In view of the award passed by the Pr Competent Authority, Betul, NHAI was under obligation to deposit the amount of the award with the Competent Authority, Betul. But a inspite of lapse of sufficient time, no money as per the award has been hy deposited.
ad
10. On 08/11/2012, the petitioner filed an application before the M respondent No.2 Arbitrator/Commissioner, Narmada Puram stating that, the petitioner is not satisfied by the amount of compensation of awarded, (Ann.A/7). The NHAI also preferred an application before respondent No.2 on 02/11/2012, (Ann.P/8). The petitioner specifically rt stated in his reply dated 26/12/2012 that, incorrect statements were ou made by the NHAI in its application and made it clear that over C 51.28% of the land area, the factory is standing, out of which, the land h area acquired is 39.77% of the factory and further the substantial part ig of the factory was falling under the control line of the NHAI. H
11. On 15/01/2013, the Arbitrator issued orders for joint inspection of the factory by a committee headed by the Competent Authority, Betul. It was then that an inspection was conducted on 23/01/2013 and submitted the report. This report clarified the situation that the factory building and lots of machines are coming under the acquired area and the committee unanimously of the opinion that the factory was to be shifted somewhere else, (Ann.P/9).
12. The Project Director, NHAI submitted letter on 22/01/2013 to the Arbitrator stating that, they are agreeable for awarding compensation of building as per the PWD Rules, relocation of the electrical part of the factory shall be as per MPEB and relocation expenses shall be paid on the basis of the amount determined by the Government approved valuer to be appointed by the Arbitrator, (Ann.P/10). The NHAI also submitted its consent before the Arbitrator that they are ready and agreeable to pay compensation as per the points mentioned in the letter dated 21/01/2013.
13. The petitioners filed WP No.9979/13 with a direction to dispose the case pending before the respondent No.2/Arbitrator to decide the case No.03/12-13 after hearing the parties within 4 weeks.
sh The High Court vide order dated 05/08/2015 was issued direction to e the Arbitrator/Commissioner to adjudicate the dispute and to assess ad the compensation on merit within a period of 4 weeks. In pursuance of Pr the said direction, respondent No.2 again constituted a Committee vide order dated 26/11/2015 and copy of the same was sent to the a petitioner, in violation of the High Court's order.
hy
14. A Contempt Petition No.128/16 has been filed before the ad High Court in compliance of the earlier order dated 05/08/2015. A M letter was also issued to the Collector on 18/02/2016 raising an objection to the proceedings and requested the Collector and other of members of the committee that these proceedings are in contravention of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner further rt requested the Collector and the members of the committee not to ou proceed further till the final decision of the contempt petition. C
15. A fresh Writ Petition No.8554/16 was filed on 26/11/2015, h for quashing the order dated 26/11/2015, passed by the respondent ig No.2 for constituting the committee. Vide order dated 08/07/2016, the H order dated 26/11/2015 passed by the Arbitrator was stayed. Another fresh writ petition i.e. W.P. No.14273/16 was filed as the petitioner had not challenged the report of the committee dated 20/04/2016 earlier. In this writ petition by an interim order dated 09/11/2016 communication letter to the committee dated 12/04/2016 was stayed and respondent No.2 was directed to decide the arbitration application filed by the petitioner within two months and it was further directed to deposit the compensation earlier awarded by SDO vide order dated 20/07/2012.
16. The petitioner has also claimed that Arbitrator did not allow the representative of the petitioner to make proper representation on behalf of the petitioner. It is further claimed that the petitioner also filed an application for providing the numerous question which were verbally informed by him but such request was turned down by the Arbitrator. The petitioner has also raised certain objections regarding the conduct of the Arbitrator such a proceeding of arbitration was taken in the Court room of the Commissioner. Private hearing of one party i.e. NAHI, behind the back of the petitioner was made. Numerous questions were put to the party verbally and numerous sh questions which are totally irrelevant to the Arbitrator proceeding. The e conduct of the Arbitrator was totally objectionable and not permissible ad under the provision of Arbitrary and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Pr
17. On 15/11/2016, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Arbitrator stated the past happening and requested that no a compensation has been deposited or paid in respect of her land.
hy Keeping in view the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation & ad Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement M Act, 2013, again on 26/12/2016, the petitioner sent a letter to the Arbitrator requesting for expediting the matter. The petitioner filed an of application for affording opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the Project Director and SDO to bring the facts on record but the same rt was dismissed. Arbitrator did not allow the husband of the petitioner ou to represent her despite application and after filing power of attorney C on a stamp paper. On 27/02/2017, the petitioner came to know that, h order has been passed by the Arbitrator after applying for the copy, the ig same was provided to the petitioner on 30/03/2017. Order dated H 23/02/2017, (Ann.P/26) was pronounced with intention to totally denying the compensation of the petitioner and directed the police to lodge FIR against the SDO/the Competent Authority, Betul and the petitioner which is completely arbitrary, unprofessional, biased and in utter violation of the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
18. On behalf of the respondent, the petition is opposed and it is argued that the Arbitrator having reason to believe that prima facie offence has been committed, passed such an order on the basis of which the FIR has been lodged, therefore, the same is not called for interference.
19. Perused the record.
20. The 50 pages arbitration award dated 23/02/2017 disclose the different correspondence. The Arbitrator criticized the action of the petitioner almost in the first half of the order. The order has no basis of any criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and the competent authority but a wild guessing was made in this regard. In the order, the Arbitrator has not specifically mentioned which are the documents which have been allegedly forged, though a vague and general sh allegation have been leveled that functioning of different companies e on the ad disputed land has been projected and the documents are forged. No Pr specific or any particular documents regarding forgery is mentioned.
21. Keeping in view that, the primary duty of the Arbitrator is to a determine the compensation and to pass an award. The dispute with hy regard to the allegations levelled by the Arbitrator is of civil nature, ad the same cannot be given a shape of criminal nature. The impugned M direction of lodging a FIR in order dated 23/02/2017 (Ann.P/27), therefore, do not hold good in the eyes of law, so far as, it relates to of the direction of lodging FIR.
rt
22. A full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the ou case of Vinod Kumar Sethi Vs. State of Punjab reported as AIR 1982 C (P & H) 372 FB, has observed that even, if the FIR or its subsequent h investigation purports to raise a suspicion of a cognizable offence, the ig High Court still quash, if it is convinced that the investigation is H malafide. Following the same as it is deems fit to interfere in the said order directing the police to lodge FIR seem to be malafide. The petition is allowed and FIR at Crime No.40/17 dated 01/03/2017, registered at Police Station Betul Bazar, District Betul and the consequential proceedings are quashed.
(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE Digitally signed by Rashmi Ronald Victor Date: 2018.03.09 02:39:05 -08'00' RS sh e ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H