Chattisgarh High Court
Bali Nagwanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 January, 2022
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 96
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 16.11.2021
Delivered on 10.01.2022
WPCR No. 674 of 2019
1. Siyaram Kurre, S/o Shri Sant Ram Kurre, Aged About 62 Years,
Retired Additional Collector, R/o Patrakar Colony, Ring Road - 2
Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Dindayal Mandavi, S/o Shri Bharat Singh Mandavi, Aged About
39 Years, Deputy Collector (Incharge Tahsildar), R/o F-3, New
Civil Lines, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
3. Arjun Shrivastava, S/o Shri Y.L. Shrivastava, Naib Tahsildar,
Aged About 55 Years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Jagdalpur, District-
Jagdalpur (C.G.)
4. Dharam Narayan Sahu, S/o Shri Lakhan Sahu, Patwari, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o Bhagat Singh Ward-6 Patharaguda,
Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.)
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary to the
Government of Chhattisgarh: Department of Revenue and
Disaster Management: Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. Union of India, Through: The Secretary to the Department of
Railway, Raisina Road, Rail Bhawan, 1, New - Delhi.
3. The Collector Jagdalpur, District - Jagdalpur (C.G.)
4. Station House Officer, Police Station - Jagdalpur, District -
Jagdalpur (C.G.)
5. Bastar Railway Private Limited, Through: The Chief Executive
Officer Regd. Off. : Exploration Centre, NMDC, Greens Villey
City, Housing Board, Colony, Boriyakala, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
WPCR No. 979 of 2019
1. Neelima Belsaria, W/o Shri T.V. Ravi, Aged About 34 Years.
2. T. V. Ravi Kurup, S/o Shri T.V. Mohan, Aged About 41 Years.
Both Residents of : R/o Village- Pallai, Tehsil-Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.). Pin Code - 494005.
---- Petitioners Versus Page 2 of 96
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station-Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.). Pin - 494001.
2. Union of India, Through: Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, Delhi. Pin Code - 110001.
3. Bank of Baroda, Through its: Chief Manager, Near Zhankaar Talkies, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.). Pin - 494001.
4. State Bank of India, Through its: Chief Manager, Collectorate Branch, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.). Pin - 494001.
5. State Bank of India, Through its: Branch Manager, Krishi Vikas Branch, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.). Pin Code - 494001.
---- Respondents WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 Bali Nagwanshi, S/o Shri Buter Nagwanshi, Aged About 54 Years, R/o House No. 87, Sun City, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)
2. Dr. Ayyaj Tamboli, Collector, Bastar, having office at Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
3. Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur through its Station House Officer, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
4. Bank of Baroda through its Branch Manager, Branch Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
5. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-1., District : New Delhi, Delhi.
6. Bastar Railway Private Limited (Joint venture of NMDC, IRCON, SAIL and CMDC) through its Chief Executive Officer, having its office at Global Exploration Centre, NMDC, Green Valley City, Housing Board Colony, Boriyakala, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents WPCR No. 1096 of 2019 Koushal Kumar Thakur, S/o Sevak Ram Thakur, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village and Post Puri, Tahsil and Police Station Charama, District- Kanker (C.G.), at present R/o D.N.K. Colony, Kanera Road, Kondagaon, Police Station- Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) Page 3 of 96
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Secretary, Union of India, Department of Railway, Raisina Road, Rail Bhawan, 1, New Delhi.
3. The Collector, Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.)
4. Station House Officer, Police Station Jagdalpur, District-
Jagdalpur (C.G.)
---- Respondents WPCR No. 751 of 2019 Smt. Neelima Belsaria, W/o Shri T. V. Ravi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village- Pallai, Tahsil-Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management: Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Union of India, Through: The Secretary to the Department of Railway, Raisina Road, Rail Bhawan, 1, New - Delhi.
3. The Collector Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.)
4. Station House Officer, Police Station - Jagdalpur, District-
Jagdalpur (C.G.)
---- Respondents WPCR No. 828 of 2019
1. Suresh B. Matali, S/o Shri B.S. Matali, Aged About 52 Years, Addl. General Manager (Civil), R/o House No. 10, Ashoka Lifestyle, Dharampura- 3, Police Station- City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.), Permanent R/o H.No.- MIG- 39, Jalanagar, Vijayapura, 586101, Karnatka.
2. A.V.R. Murty, S/o Shri A. Krishna Murty, Aged About 54 Years, Joint General Manager (Civil), R/o House No. 69, Ashoka Lifestyle, Dharampura- 3, Police Station- City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.), Permanent R/o H/No.- 12-2-16/2, Chinna Veedhi, Samalkot, 533440, East Godawari District, Andhara Pradesh.
---- Petitioners Page 4 of 96 Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Union of India, Through The Secretary to the Department of Railway, Raisina Road, Rail Bahawan, 1, New Delhi, District- New Delhi, Delhi.
3. The Collector Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
4. Station House Officer, Police Station- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
---- Respondents WPC No. 3355 of 2019 Bastar Railway Private Limited, A Joint Venture Company of NMDC Ltd., SAIL, CMDC Ltd. and IRCON Ltd. through its Executive Director/CEO, Housing Board Colony, Boriyakala, Sejbahar, Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.)
2. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.
3. Commissioner Div. Bastar cum Arbitrator Under Railways Act District- Bastar (C.G.)
4. Collector Bastar, District- Bastar (C.G.)
5. Additional Collector Bastar cum Land Acquisition Officer/ Competent Authority, District- Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.)
6. Bali Nagwanshi, S/o Buter Nagwanshi, aged about not known to the petitioner, R/o Sun City, Jagdalpur (C.G.)
7. Nilima, W/o T.V. Ravi, aged about not known to the petitioner, R/o Palli Village, Jagdalpur (C.G.)
8. Smt. Pakli, W/o Late Maniram, aged about not known to the petitioner, R/o Palli Village, Jagdalpur (C.G.)
9. Nitya Gopal, S/o Shitij Chand, H/o Reena Village Kangoli, District- Bastar (C.G.)
10. Seem Rathi, W/o Ajay Rathi, Village- Palli, District- Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.)
---- Respondents And Page 5 of 96 WPCR No. 1037 of 2019 Hira Lal Nayak, S/o Late Kunwar Singh Nayak, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Vijay Nagar Chowk, Near Avanti Vihar Sector- 2, Tehsil & District- Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Collector, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.)
3. Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
4. Station House Officer, Police Station- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.)
---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Advocate with Mr Amit Verma, Ms. Swati Sood, Mr. Kaushik Mishra, Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastgava, Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Mr. Rohan & Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocates.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, Dy. A.G. with Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. For respective : Mr. Vaibhav Dhar Diwan, Advocate on behalf respondents of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Mr. Manoj Mishra, Mr. Ankit Singhal, Mr. Yash Agrawal, and Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocates.
For Union of India : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, A.S.G. For Bastar Railway : Mr. Vikash Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pvt. Ltd. Vaibhav Shukla, Ms. Deepika Kalia, Ms. Astha Shukla & Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order
1. As common question of law and facts are involved in all the aforesaid bunch of Writ Petitions (Cr.) & Writ Petition (C), they heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
Page 6 of 962. By filing all these Writ Petitions (Cr.), the petitioners who are either Government Officials or the land losers have assailed the report dated 30.07.2019 given by respondent No.2/Collector Bastar and on the basis of this report, First Information Report dated 04.08.2019 was registered in connection with Crime No. 409/2019 at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar under Sections 109, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 406, 407, 408 and 409 of IPC and two letters bearing Nos. 1274 and 1283 dated 5- 8-2019 issued by respondent No.3/Station House Officer to respondent No.4 Bank seeking to freeze the Bank Account Nos. 101202000007188, 10120400000117 and 10120100010115 of the respective petitioners on various facts and grounds which will be dealt with separately with regard to individual petitioners in foregoing paragraphs of this order.
WPCR No. 1031 of 20193. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 are that the petitioner is a tribal belonging to Nagwanshi Tribe. The State of Chhattisgarh by issuing the notification dated 02.07.2014 has notified Ward No.37 of Jagdalpur as Lok Manya Tilak Ward and its boundaries are near to and adjoining village Palli in Bastar District. On 28.08.2015 the Central Government issued a notification exercising powers under Section 105(3) of the Right to Compensation Act 2013 (for short, "the Act, 2013"), by which certain provisions of the Act, 2013 have been made applicable. Thereafter, on 04-04.2016 the Government of India issued a notification under Section 2(37-A) of the Railways Act for notifying the Special Railway Project in the State of Chhattisgarh between Rowghat - Jagdalpur (140 km.) part of Dailirajhara -Jagdalpur 235 km. railway line. The said special railway project was to be constructed for providing better infrastructure. It has been further stated that the Central Government notified the rules for the purpose of special railway projects vide notification dated 23.06.2016 and thereafter vide Page 7 of 96 order dated 20.01.2017 has appointed competent authority as defined under Section 2(7A) of the Railways Act to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification and accordingly for Bastar District, Additional Collector was appointed as competent authority to determine the compensation.
4. It has been further stated that the petitioner has submitted his objections for the acquisition of his lands situated at village Palli and his objections were rejected, by the competent authority on 31.01.2018. Thereafter, the Central Government issued notification dated 21.08.2017 under Section 20-A of the Railways Act inviting objections with respect to the lands proposed to be acquired for the purpose of special railway project under the said notification. In pursuance of the notification dated 21.08.2017 issued by the Central Government, objections were received and decided by the Additional Collector/Competent Authority and thereafter the Central Government issued notification dated 21.12.2017 under Section 20-E of the Railways Act declaring the acquisition of the land mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, the lands specified in schedule of notification dated 21.12.2017 vested with the Central Government. It has been further contended that the learned Additional Collector after considering the provisions of the Railway Act has passed the award on 12.02.2018 granting compensation for acquiring the lands of the petitioner.
5. It has been further contended that the compensation payable to the petitioner for his land was computed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Act and according to First Schedule read with Section 26 of the Act 2013. It has been further contended that the total area of the land acquired from the petitioner in Khasra No. 123/1 and 123/2 admeasuring 2.69 hectares out of which 0.4 hectare of land was agricultural land converted to commercial use, as such the petitioner is entitled to Page 8 of 96 25% more compensation than the rate prescribed under the guidelines for the same area. The prescribed rate for the land acquired under the guidelines for the year 2017-18 is Rs. 13,800/-, as such for 0.4 hectares, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,250 per square meter, but the petitioner has not been paid a single rupee in excess of what the petitioner was entitled to receive as compensation in accordance with guidelines of 2017-2018. It has been further submitted that since the petitioner has not received the compensation in accordance with guidelines, therefore, baseless and frivolous allegations were made by the respondent No. 2 in the report wherein it has been stated that the petitioner allegedly committed fraud in collusion with the revenue authorities to get the excessive amount of compensation in lieu of his land. It has been further contended that since the land has been vested absolutely in the Central Government and the Central Government represented through Ministry of Railways has not made any complaint to any judicial authority in the State of Chhattisgarh indicating any kind of fraud or foul play in acquisition of land, therefore, the said report submitted by the Collector is without authority of law and without jurisdiction.
6. It has been further contended that since respondent No.6/BRPL has no objection with regard to quantum of the compensation, therefore, they sanctioned to deposit Rs.1,88,82,66,402/- as the total compensation for the said acquisition under the Railways Act. The said amount was to be deposited for all the land oustees whose lands have been acquired for the special Railway project. It has been further contended that the petitioner has filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and has received information on 06.11.2018 that the rate is applicable to the petitioner's land bearing khasra No. 123/1 and 123/2 in terms of the guidelines is Rs.13,800/- per square meter in respect of the area on the road side from MGM School Zone to Page 9 of 96 Palli Nakka, therefore, he raised objection before the arbitrator and filed an application for enhancement of compensation. Thereafter, the Commissioner was appointed as Arbitrator for the purpose of Section 20F(6) of the Railways Act by the Central Government vide notification dated 24.01.2019, as if the amount of compensation as provided under sub-section (3) is not acceptable to either of the parties then they can file an application before the Arbitrator, who in turn will decide the same.
7. It has been further contended that the respondent No.2/Collector who has no jurisdiction under the Railways Act to enquire into acquisition though the Collector vide its order dated 19.07.2019 constituted a Enquiry Committee headed by the Sub Divisional Officer-Shri G.R. Markam as Enquiry Officer, Shri Madhukar Sirmor as Assistant Enquiry Officer and Shri Pankaj Singh as Assistant Enquiry Officer. It has been further contended that three members enquiry committee conducted roving enquiry into the award dated 12.02.2018 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the other Revenue Officers associated with the acquisition proceeding and reached to conclusion that there was foul play on a large scale. It has been further contended that the Committee has no jurisdiction and authority directed to conduct an investigation into the acquisition proceedings which was initiated by the Central Government for the purpose of Indian Railways and the Committee without considering the entire material has recommended for recovery of compensation amount allegedly paid to the petitioner and also recommended for registration of FIR. Thereafter, on the basis of report, FIR has been registered under Sections 109, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 406, 407, 408 and 409 of IPC. The relevant portion of FIR is extracted below (Annexure P/2):-
"मम थथानथा ककोतवथालल जगदलपपुर मम थथानथा प्रभथारल कक पद पर पदस्थ हह ह कक Page 10 of 96 कथारथार्यालर कलकक्टर (भभ-अजर्या न शथाखथा) जजलथा बस्तर जगदलपपुर कक जथापन क्रमथामांक/क/भभ-अजर्या न/2019 जगदलपपुर कदनथामांक-30.07. 2019 कक मथाध्रम सक कथारथार्यालर कलकक्टर एवम जजलथा दण्डथाजधिकथारल बस्तर जजलथा बस्तर कथा जथापन क्रमथामांक 196/भभ-अजर्या न/2019 जगदलपपुर कदनथामांक 30.07.2019 प्रथाप हह आ जजसमम जगदलपपुर रथावघथाट रकल्वक परररकोजनथा सक समांबमांजधित नवभथारत ददैकनक कदनथामांक 19.07.2019 मम प्रकथाकशत समथाचथार जगदलपपुर रकल्वक स्टकशन कक आड मक 250 करकोड खकल कक पररपकक्ष्र मम प्रथारमांकभक जथामांच प्रकतवकदन कथा अवलकोकन करनक पर बस्तर रकल प्रकोजकक्ट रथावघथाट सक जगदलपपुर कक जलए भभ अजधिग्रहण नथामथामांककत भभ- अजर्या न अजधिकथारल दथारथा कक गई और मपुअथावजथा तथथा ब्रथाज कथा कनधिथार्यारण ककरथा गरथा । उसमक कलकक्टर, बस्तर दथारथा टलम बनथाकर भभ अजधिग्रहण, रकल पथ कथा कनधिथार्यारण, अजधिग्रकहत भभकम कथा मपुआवजथा, ब्रथाज और तत्समांबमांधिल कनरमथावलल कक आधिथार पर भभकम चरन, ब्रथाज मपुआवजथा कनधिथार्यारण कवषरक जजॉच कथारर्या वथाहल कक गई । कलकक्टर, बस्तर दथारथा अपनल जजॉच प्रकतवकदन मम पलल ग्रथाम कक भभकम स्वथामल बलल नथागवमांशल एवमां शलमतल कनजलमथा कको प्रदत मपुआवजथा और ब्रथाज कको अवदैधि एवमां कनधिथार्याररत मपुआवजथा तथथा ब्रथाज कको अत्रजधिक बतथारथा हदै । इस प्रकतवकदन मक सम्बजधित भभ- अजर्या न मक कवकभन शथासककर अजधिकथारल/कमर्या चथारररको कक भभकमकथा स्पष्टतत कवजधि कवरूद पथारथा गरथा हदै । रथाजस्व कक नथामथामांककत अजधिकथारल/कमर्या चथारररको एवमां अन्र कक कवरूद प्रथाथकमकक दजर्या करनक हकतपु सभचनथा दल हदै । उक प्रकतवकदन कक आधिथार पर कनम्न प्रथाथकमकक दजर्या कक जथातल हदै । भभ-अजर्या न अजधिकथारल दथारथा मपुआवजथा कनधिथार्यारण हकतपु अजधिकनरम एवम तत्सम्बमांधिल कनरमम कथा पथालन नहह ककरथा हदै । रह भभ-अजधिग्रहण कवशकष रकल परररकोजनथा हकतपु कक जथानल थल । अतत रकल्वक एक्ट कक प्रथावधिथानको कक अन्तगर्या त मपुआवजथा कथा कनधिथार्यारन हकोनथा थथा, ककन्तपु इसकथा पथालन नहह ककरथा गरथा और भभ-अजर्या न, पपुनवथार्यासन, पपुनर्याव्रवस्थथापन मम उकचत प्रकतकर और पथारदकशर्या तथा अजधिकथार अजधिकनरम 2013 कक अन्तगर्या त मपुआवजथा तथथा सकोलकजसरम कनधिथार्यारण अवदैधि हदै । जगदलपपुर तहसलल मम कपुल 108 खथातको मक भभ-अजर्या न कक कथारर्या वथाहल कक गई । इनमक सक 15 खथातक एदै सक थक जजनमक एक सक अजधिक खसरक अजजर्या त हह ए और उन 15 खथातको मक सक ककवल 02 खथातको मक प्रत्रकक खसरक अलग मथानतक हह ए गणनथा कक गई जबकक अन्र 13 खथातको मक एक सक अजधिक अजजर्या त खसरथा नमांबर हकोनक कक बथावजभद इसकको एक हल खथातथा मथानकर गणनथा कक गई जजन 02 खथातको कक जलए मथागर्या दकशर्या क जसदथामांतको कथा उलमांघन ककरथा गरथा वह खथातक कनम्नथानपुसथार हदै- (1) बलल नथागवमांशल कपतथा बपुटकर नथागवमांशल दथारथा धिथाररत भभकम खसरथा नमांबर 123/1, Page 11 of 96 123/2 कथा पपृथक-पपृथक गणनथा ककरथा गरथा हदै । (2) कनजलमथा पकत टल.व्हल. रकव दथारथा धिथाररत भभकम खसरथा नमांबर 125/1 सक 125/29, 125/31, 125/33, सक 125/37 तक कपुल खसरथा नमांबर 35 कथा पपृथक-पपृथक गणनथा ककरथा गरथा हदै । जको कक बथाजथार मभल्र मथागर्या दकशर्या कथा जसदथामांत कक प्रथावधिथानम कक कवपरलत हदै । गणनथाकतर्या ओ नक कमांगकोलल कक 07 खथातको, घथाटपदभभर कक 03 तथथा अघनपपुर कक 03 खथातको मम जहथामां एक सक अजधिक खसरथा नमांबर अजजर्या त हह ए हदै, उनमक जसदथामांत कथा पथालन करतक हह ए एक खथातक कक गणनथा एक चक्र मम कक गई हदै । ककमांतपु उपरकोक ककवल 02 हल खथातको मक स्पष्ट रूप सक उलमांघन करतक हह ए गणनथा कक हदै । भभ-अजर्या न हकतपु धिथारथा 20-ए रकलवक अजधिकनरम कक अमांतगर्या त भभ-अजर्या न हकतपु प्रपत 10 तदैरथार ककरथा गरथा हदै । इसमक पलल ग्रथाम कक कनजलमथा पकत टल.व्हल. रकव कक खथातक कक समांबमांधि मम 125/1 सक 125/29, 125/31, 125/33 सक 125/37 सभल कको एक हल खथातक मक अमांककत करतक हह ए पटवथारल धिमर्या नथारथारण सथाहह दथारथा पभणर्या रकबक कको एक चक्र मम गणनथा करतक हह ए दशथार्यारथा गरथा हदै । जजसमक रथाजस्व कनरलक्षक अजभर्यान शलवथास्तव नक भल परर्या वकक्षण न कर पटवथारल कको आपरथाजधिक षड़रमांत मम शथाकमल हह ए इसल तरह तहसललदथार दलनदरथाल मण्डथावल भल आपरथाजधिक गकतकवजधिरम मम समांजलप रहक उप पमांजलरक कको ककवल पलल ग्रथाम मम गणनथा हकतपु पत प्रककषत ककरथा गरथा जजसमक उप पमांजलरक नक 30 जनवरल कको गणनथा पतक तदैरथार करतक हह ए भभ-अजर्या न शथाखथा कको भकजथा इस गणनथा पतक मम भल कनजलमथा पकत टल.व्हल. रकव कक खथातक कक समांदभर्या मक 125/1 सक 125/29, 125/31, 125/33 सक 125/37 सभल कको एक हल खथातक मम अमांककत करतक हह ए एक चक्र मम गणनथा कर कदनथामांक 30 जनवरल 2018 कको पतक प्रस्तपुत ककरथा गरथा । इस प्रकथार पटवथारल एवम उप पमांजलरक कको प्रथम गणनथा मम इसक एक खथातथा मथानकर सभल खसरको मक गणनथा एक सथाथ कक गई । उप पमांजलरक ककौशल ठथाकपुर दथारथा अगलक हल कदन 31 जनवरल 2018 कको प्रत्रकक खसरक कथा पपृथक-पपृथक खथातथा मथानकर पपृथक गणनथा पतक प्रस्तपुत ककरथा गरथा । सथाथ हल सथाथ पटवथारल दथारथा 01 फरवरल 2018 कको आनलथाईन बल-01 उपलब्धि करथारक गरक, जजसमक हर खसरक कको अलग खथातथा बनथाकर दशथार्यारथा गरथा । इसमक स्पष्ट हकोतथा हदै कक पटवथारल धिमर्या नथारथारणस सथाहह व प्रभथारल उप पमांजलरक ककौशल ठथाकपुर नक दस्तथावकजको मक कभटरचनथा ककरक हदै । जजससक रह स्पष्ट हकोतथा हदै कक कनजलमथा पकत टल.व्हल. रकव एवम बलल नथागवमांशल कको अनपुकचत लथाभ पहह मांचथानक कक जलए रह कथारर्या वथाहल कक गई । रह आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत एवमां आपरथाजधिक दष्पु प्रकरणथा कक शकणल मम आतथा हदै । जजलथा बस्तर मम जजलथा पमांजलरक पदस्थ हदै, इसकक बथावजभद जजलथा पमांजलरक कको सम्बकोजधित Page 12 of 96 पतथाचथार कको जजलथा कक स्थथान पर व्हथाइटनर लगथातक हह ए उप पमांजलरक कको ककवल पलल ग्रथाम कक गणनथा हकतपु अनपुकवभथागलर अजधिकथारल (रथाजस्व) कक दथारथा अवदैधि रूप सक पतथाचथार ककरथा गरथा, जबकक इन्हम सभल ग्रथामको कथा जजलथा पमांजलरक सक गणनथा करथानथा थथा । इस पत मम जजलथा पमांजलरक शब्द मक सक जजलथा शब्द मक व्हथाईटनर कको लगथारथा जजसमक अनपुकवभथागलर अजधिकथारल एवमां प्रभथारल उप पमांजलरक ककौशल ठथाकपुर कक भभकमकथा आपरथाजधिक हदै । बलल नथागवमांशल कपतथा बपुटकर नथागवमांशल दथारथा ग्रथाम पलल मम धिथाररत भभकम व्रपवकतर्या त क्रमथामांक 123/1, 123/2, कपुल रकबथा 2.69 हक० कको शहरल मथानकर मपुआवजथा रथाकश 70.62 करकोड रूपरक अवथाडर्या ककरथा गरथा हदै, जबकक ग्रथामलण क्षकत हकोनक कक आधिथार पर कपुल मपुआवजथा 7.79 करकोड रूपरक पररगकणत हकोतथा हदै । अतत इस खथातकदथार कको 62.82 करकोड रूपरक अजधिक मपुआवजथा प्रदथान ककरथा गरथा हदै । उक भभकम कथा बथाजथार मभल्र कक गणनथा ग्रथामलण क्षकत कक अनपुरूप हल हकोनल थल । कनजलमथा पकत टल.व्हल. रकव दथारथा ग्रथाम पलल मम धिथाररत भभकम व्रपवकतर्या त खसरथा क्रमथामांक 125/1 सक 125/29, 125/31, 125/33 सक 125/37 तक कपुल खसरथा नम्बर 35 कपुल रकबथा 1.040 हक० कक मपुआवजथा रथाकश 25.19 करकोड रूपरक अवथाडर्या ककरथा गरथा हदै । जबकक ग्रथामलण क्षकत हकोनक कक आधिथार पर कपुल मपुआवजथा 4.38 करकोड रूपरक पररगकणत हकोतथा हदै । कनजलमथा पकत टल.व्हल. रकव कको 20.80 करकोड रूपरक अजधिक मपुआवजथा प्रदथान ककरथा गरथा । पथाकलल बकवथा मनलरथाम एवमां तथथा नथागवमांशल कबल्डसर्या एवमां डकवलपसर्या भथागलदथार बलल नथागवमांशल कपतथा बपुटकर नथागवमांशल दथारथा ग्रथाम पलल मक धिथाररत कपृकष भभकम खसरथा क्रमथामांक 123/3 रकबथा 0.12 हक० कक मपुआवजथा रथाकश 2.28 करकोड रूपरक अवथाडर्या ककरथा गरथा । जबकक ग्रथामलण क्षकत हकोनक कक कथारण कपुल मपुआवजथा 0.27 करकोड रूपरक आकलन हकोतथा हदै । पथाकलल बकवथा मनलरथाम एवमां खथातकदथारको कको 2.01 करकोड रूपरक अजधिक मपुआवजथा प्रदथान ककरथा गरथा हदै । ग्रथाम पलल सस्थत जजन 02 खथातकदथारको कको अनपुकचत लथाभ पहह मांचथारथा गरथा उन मक सक एक खथातकदथार बलल नथागवमांशल कक अन्र भभकम जजसमक वह सह खथातकदथार हदै, पथाकलल बकवथा मनलरथाम एवमां अन्र तथथा नथागवमांशल कबल्डसर्या डकव्हलपसर्या भथागलदथार दथारथा ग्रथाम पलल मक धिथाररत कपृकष भभकम खसरथा क्रमथामांक 123/3 रकबथा 0.12 हकक्टकरर कक गणनथा ग्रथामलण क्षकत कक आधिथार पर नहह कर नगरलर क्षकत मथानकर कक गई । उसमक भल नगरलर क्षकत हकतपु कवद्यमथान स्लदैब कक कनरमथानपुसथार गणनथा नहह कक गई हदै एदै सल गणनथा करतक हह रक बलल नथागवमांशल पथाकलल बकवथा मनलरथाम एवम अन्र तथथा नथागवमांशल कबल्डसर्या एवमां डकव्लपसर्या कको अनपुकचत लथाभ पहह मांचथारथा गरथा जको आपरथाजधिक षड़रमांत एवमां आपरथाजधिक दष्पु प्रकरणथा कक शकणल मम आतथा हदै । खसरथा क्रमथामांक Page 13 of 96 123 एवम 125 इन खथातको कको शहरल क्षकत मथानतक हह ए गण कक गई, जबकक लगक हह ए खसरथा क्रमथामांक 124/27 एवम घथाटपदमभर कक खसरथा क्रमथामांक-980/2, 981/2 कको ग्रथामलण क्षकत मथानतक हह ए गणनथा कक गई । गणनथा हकतपु गकठत दल कक पटवथारल धिमर्या नथारथारण सथाहह दथारथा ग्रथाम पलल कको कपुछ खथातको कको नगरलर क्षकत कक भभकम तथथा कपुछ कको ग्रथामलण एवम ग्रथाम घथाटपदमभर कक सभल खथातको कको ग्रथामलणल क्षकत मथानकर गणनथा कक गई हदै । पटवथारल कको मथालभम हकोतक हह ए भल कक रह ग्रथामलण क्षकत कक भभकम हदै, कनजलमथा बकलसरररथा तथथा बजल नथागवमांशल कको अवदैधि लथाभ पहह मांचथानक हकतपु नगरलर भभकम कक कहसथाब सक गणनथा कक गई हदै । एक खथातथा कक एक सक अजधिक खसरको कको पपृथक-पपृथक खथातथा मथानकर गणनथा कर क्षकतफल आधिथाररत स्लदैब पररवकतर्या त कर अजधिक मपुआवजथा बनथारथा गरथा जको आपरथाजधिक षड़रमांत हदै । इसकक अकतररक बथाजथार मभल्र मथागर्या दशर्या क जसदथामांत वषर्या 2017-18 सक समांबमांजधित उपबमांधि कक प्रथारूप 01 क उपबमांधि कक कमांकडकथा 10 कक अनपुसथार नगरलर आवथासलर क्षकत मम एदै सल सम्पजत जको रकोड सक अमांदर सस्थत हदै परमांतपु जजसकथा उपरकोग व्रथावसथाकरक/औद्यकोकगक प्ररकोजन कक जलए ककरथा जथा रहथा हको, उस क्षकत कक जलए कनधिथार्याररत दर मम 25% वपृकद कर बथाजथार मभल्र कक गणनथा कक जथारकगल । पलल ग्रथाम कक बलल नथागवमांशल कपतथा बपुटकर नथागवमांशल कक खसरथा क्रमथामांक 123/1 उपमां 123/2 कक गणनथा मपुख्र मथागर्या पर स्थथाकपत तथथा पररवकतर्या त भभकम कक रूप मम बथाजथार मभल्र कक अजधिकतम रथाकश कक सथाथ गणनथा कक गई हदै, ककन्तपु अनपुकचत लथाभ दकनक हकतपु मपुख्रमथागर्या कक दर कक सथाथ मपुख्रमथागर्या सक अमांदर सस्थत भभकम मथानतक हह ए 25% अकतररक मपुआवजथा कक गणनथा कक गई जको अवदैधि हदै । इससक स्पष्ट हकोतथा हदै कक गणनथाकतथार्या एवमां सक्षम प्रथाजधिकथारल दथारथा उक खथातकदथार कको कनरम कथा उलमांघन करतक हह ए लथाभ पहह मांचथारथा गरथा । ग्रथाम पलल सस्थत भभकम खसरथा नमांबर 27 रकबथा 0.11 हक० सलमथा रथाठल पकत अजर रथाकठ कक नथाम पर धिथाररत हदै । इस भभकम कथा मपुआवजथा रथाकश कक गणनथा ग्रथामलण आधिथार पर कक गई हदै । रह भभकम ग्रथाम पलल कक बजल नथागवमांशल कक भभकम कक दस भ रल ओर मपुख्र सड़क मथागर्या जगदलपपुर कचतककोट पर सस्थत हदै तथथा सड़क सक हल लगल हह ई तथथा सम मभल्र कक भभकम हदै । दस भ रक प्रकरण मम ग्रथाम पलल सस्थत भभकम खसरथा नमांबर- 124 रकबथा 0.66 हक० कनत्र गकोपथाल कपतथा कशकतज एवमां अन्र कक नथाम पर धिथाररत कपृकष भभकम हदै तथथा भभकम खसरथा नमांबर 125 एवमां 123 सक दकक्षणल सलमथा सक लगल हह ई हदै एवमां रह भभकम भल सममभल्र हदै । इस भभकम कक भल बथाजथार मभल्र कक गणनथा ग्रथाम पलल कको ग्रथामलण क्षकत मथानकर कक गई तलसरक प्रकरण मक ग्रथाम घथाटपदमभर सस्थत भभकम खसरथा नमांबर 980/2, 981/2, रकबथा क्रमशत 0.200 सक 0.200 हक० मक सक रकबथा क्रमशत 0.600, Page 14 of 96 0.110 हक० अजजर्या त कक गई हदै। रक दकोनको भभकमरथा हररशमांकर झथा कपतथा रमथाकथामांत झथा कक नथाम पर धिथाररत हदै । रह भभकम ग्रथाम पलल सस्थत बलल नथागवमांशल कक नथाम पर धिथाररत खसरथा नमांबर 123/01 कक पभवर सरहद पर जगदलपपुर कक ओर मपुख्र मथागर्या सक हल लगल हह ई हदै । तथथा सममभल्र कक भभकम हदै । जजसकक भल गणनथा ग्रथामलण क्षकत कक आधिथार पर कक गई हदै । उपरकोक तथ्रम सक स्पष्ट हकोतथा हदै कक बलल नथागवमांशल व कनजलमथा बकलसरररथा पकत टल.व्हल. रकव कको अनपुकचत लथाभ दकनक कक उदकश्र सक एक क्षकत मक आनक वथालल भभकम कक मपुआवजथा रथाकश कक गणनथा पक्षपथात पभणर्या ढमांग सक षड़रमांतपभवर्याक पपृथक-पपृथक मथापदण्ड सक एवम बथाजथार मभल्र मथागर्या दकशर्या क जसदथामांत सक परक जथाकर ककरथा गरथा हदै। खसरथा नमांबर 123 पभवर्या मक बलल नथागवमांशल, मपु. पथाकलल बकवथा मनलरथाम एवम अन्र कक समांरक पु खथातक कक भभकम थल, जजसक बलल नथागवमांशल नक खसरथा नमांबर 123/1 एवम 123/2 कको क्रमशत कदनथामांक 23/01/2015 एवम 12/10/2010 कको अपनक सह खथातकदथारको सक हल क्रर ककरथा। चभमांकक रकल लथाईन कथा प्रथारमांकभक सवर 2007-
08 हको चपुकथा थथा । भभ-अजर्या न कक सस्थकत मम प्रथाप मपुआवजथा कथा उपभकोग स्वरमां करनक कक कनरत सक उपरकोक दकोनको भभकम कको क्रर ककरथा गरथा और खरलदल कक पश्चथात 07 मथाह कक भलतर हल भभकम कथा डथारवसर्या न कदनथामांक 13/09/2015 कको वथाकणसजरक एवमां आवथासलर मद मम करथारथा गरथा हदै । जको आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत एवमां आपरथाजधिक दष्पु प्रकरणथा कक शकणल मम आतथा हदै । कनजलमथा, स्पमांदनथा नथामक आवथासलर पररसर कथा कनमथार्याण ग्रथाम पलल क खसरथा 125 मक ककरथा गरथा थथा इस हकतपु ग्रथाम पमांचथारत पलल एवमां तत्कथाललन अनपु० अजधिकथारल (रथाजस्व) सक भभ-कवकथास हकतपु अनपुजथा प्रथाप थल । उक समरथावजधि मम खथातकदथार कनजलमथा स्वरमां ग्रथाम सरपमांच रहल हदै । ककन्तपु आवथासलर प्लथाट कक कबक्रक कक जलरक नगर क्षकत अजधिक फथारदक कक हकोगल इसजलए इनकक दथारथा नगर कनगम कको आशर शपुल्क जमथा करतक हह ए नगर कनगम मम ससम्मजलत हकोनक कथा षड़रमांत ककरथा । बस्तर जजलक मम भभ-अजर्या न प्रकरणको मक पररसम्पजतरको पर भल पक्षपथातपभणर्या गणनथा कर बलल नथागवमांशल एवम कनजलमथा वकलसरररथा कको अवदैधि लथाभ षडरमांत पभवर्याक कदरथा गरथा हदै । ग्रथाम अघनपपुर घथाटपदभभर एवम कमांगकोलल मक कम मभल्र कक भभकम उपलब्धि हकोनक कक बथावजभद इस रकल लथाईन कको षडरमांत पभवर्याक पलल कक ओर कनजलमथा एवम बजल नथागवमांशल कको अवदैधि लथाभ पहह मांचथानक हकतपु बदलथा गरथा एवम रक तलन गथामांव मम मपुआवजथा कथा आकलन भल गलत ककरथा गरथा । जगदलपपुर रथावघथाट रकल परररकोजनथा हकतपु भभकम कथा अजर्या न रकल्वक अजधिकनरम 1989 रथथा समांशकोजधित 2008 कक अनपुसथार ककरथा गरथा हदै । उलकखनलर हदै कक रकल्वक अजधिकनरम 1989 भभकम अजर्या न पपुनवथार्यासन एवमां पपुनव्रर्या स्थथापन मक उकचत Page 15 of 96 प्रकतकर एवमां पथारदकशर्या तथा अजधिकथार अजधिकनरम 2013 कक अनपुसभकच 04 मक 13 अपवजजर्या त अजधिकनरमको मक सक रह अजधिकनरम ससम्मजलत हदै । भभकम अजर्या न पपुनवथार्यासन एवम पपुनव्रर्या स्थथापन मक उकचत प्रकतकर एवम पथारदकशर्या तथा अजधिकथार अजधिकनरम 2013 कक धिथारथा 113 कक अमांतगर्या त समांघलर सरकथार कक ग्रथामलण कवकथास ममांतथालर कक कथारर्या पथाजलक आदकश कदनथामांक 28 अगस्त 2015 कक दथारथा उक अजधिकनरम कक अनपुसभचल 04 मक वकणर्या त अपवजजर्या त शकणल कक अजधिकनरमको कक अधिलन भभकम अजर्या न कक सभल मथामलको मम पहलल अनपुसभकच कक अनपुकरण मक प्रकतकर कक अवधिथारणथा और दस भ रल अनपुसभकच कको अनपुसरण मक पपुनवथार्यासन एवमां पपुनव्रर्या स्थथापन तथथा तलसरल अनपुसभचल कक अनपुसरण मम अवसमांरचनथात्मक असपुकवधिथाओ सक समांबमांजधित भभकम अजर्या न पपुनवथार्यासन एवमां पपुनव्रर्या स्थथापन मक उकचत प्रकतकर एवम पथारदकशर्या तथा अजधिकथार अजधिकनरम 2013 कक उपबन्धि लथागभ ककरक गरक हदै । रकल अजधिकनरम 1989 कक तहत हकोनक वथालक भभकम अजर्या न हकतपु ककवल मपुआवजक कथा कनधिथार्यारण अनपुसभचल 1, 2 एवम 3 अनपुसथार हकोनल चथाकहए । भभ-अजर्या न अजधिकनरम 2013 कक अनपुसभचल 1, 2, 3 कक अनपुसथार 12% ब्रथाज कथा उलकख नहह हदै । 12% ब्रथाज भभ-अजर्या न अजधिकनरम कक धिथारथा 30 (3) कक अन्तगर्या त कदरथा जथातथा ककन्तपु इसकथा उलकख 2015 कको कथारर्या पथाजलक आदकश एवमां अजधिकनरम 2013 कक अनपुसभचल 1, 2, 3 नहह हदै । अतत 12% ब्रथाज इस गणनथा हकतपु कदरथा जथानथा अवदैधिथाकनक हदै । सक्षम प्रथाजधिकथारल दथारथा आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत ककरथा गरथा हदै । रकल्वक समांशकोधिन अजधिकनरम 2008 कको दकखनक पर स्पष्ट हदै कक 20(ए) अनपुसथार भभ-अजर्या न कक उदकोषणथा कक 04 वषर्या कक भलतर अवथाडर्या पथाररत कर अकतररक रथाकश ब्रथाज कक रूप मम भपुगतथान ककरथा जथानथा अपककक्षत नहह हदै । जगदलपपुर रथावथाघथाट रकल परररकोजनथा हकतपु रकल्वक अजधिकनरम 20(ए) कक तहत उदकोषणथा 21 अगस्त 2017 कको जथारल ककरथा गरथा एवम 20(F) एवमां (जल) कक अन्तगर्या त भभ अजर्या न कथा अवथाडर्या 06 मथाह कक समरथावजधि कक भलतर 12 फरवरल 2018 कको पथारलत ककरथा गरथा । अतत 12% ब्रथाज कक पररगणनथा ककरथा जथानथा अवदैधि हदै, तथथा आपरथाजधिक षड़रमांत एवम आपरथाजधिक दष्पु प्रकरणथा जकनत हदै । इमांकडरन रकल्वक कन्सटट क्शन कमांपनल जलकमटकड (IRCON) कको सवर रकल मथागर्या कनधिथार्यारन एवम कनमथार्याण कक जजम्मकदथारल कमलल थल वषर्या 2007 मक रकल्व लथाईन कथा सवर ककरथा गरथा थथा ककन्तपु बथाद मक IRCON कको जब सवर कथारर्या कमलथा तब नरक जसरक सक सवर ककरथा गरथा थथा जजसमम आजथर्या क एवम तककनकक पहलभ कको अनदकखथा कर महत्वपभणर्या पररवतर्या न मथागर्या मक ककरक गरक जजससक भभ अजर्या न कक अवथाडर्या रथाकश मक भथारल वपृकद हह ई । मभल प्रस्तथाव मम रकल्वक कक मथानक अनपुसथार कम सक कम 10 कक.मल. कक दरभ ल मक एक स्टकशन प्रस्तथाकवत थथा । स्टकशन कथा कनमथार्याण कहथामां Page 16 of 96 हकोनथा हदै इसकथा कनणर्या र पभणर्यातत IRCON कक अजधिकथारररको दथारथा तककनकक आधिथार पर जलरथा जथानथा थथा । तककनकक दृकष्टककोण कक कवपरलत स्टकशन कक जलए उपरपुक भभकम कथा अजधिग्रहण ककरथा गरथा । पलल कक स्थथान पर कमांगकोलल घथाटपदभभर मम स्टकशन बनथानथा आजथर्या क एवम तककनकक दकष्टककोण सक उकचत हकोतथा । घथाटपदभभर मम ककब्रिस्तथान कक कथारण लथाईन बदलथा गरथा तथथा पलल मम पपुरथा स्टकशन मरघट/श्मसथान मम लथारथा गरथा। कमांगकोलल एवम घथाटपदभभर मम सस्तल कनजज एवम शथासककर भकम उपलब्धि हकोनक कक बथावजभद ग्रथाम पलल कक भभकम तककनकक और आजथर्या क पहलभओ पर कवचथार ककरक कबनथा अजधिग्रकहत कक गई जको आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत एवमां आपरथाजधिक दष्पु प्रकरणथा कथा पररणथाम हदै रकल अजधिकनरम कक अमांतगर्या त कनरपुक सक्षम प्रथाजधिकथारल अकतररक कलकक्टर कको हल सम्पभणर्या कथारर्या वथाहल और जथामांच दल गकठत करनक कथा अजधिकथार हदै । उन्हम अनपुकवभथागलर अजधिकथारल (रथाजस्व) दथारथा गकठत दल कक ररपकोटर्या खथाररज करनथा थथा लकककन षड़रमांत पभवर्याक उन्हकोनक अवदैधि ररपकोटर्या कको स्वलकथार ककरथा जजससक अत्रजधिक मपुआवजथा बलल एवम कनजलमथा कको कदरथा गरथा सथाथ हल रकल अजधिकनरम 1989 कक धिथारथा 20 बल कक तहत रथाष्टटलर बमक मक खथातथा न खकोलकर रथाकश कलकक्टर कक खथातथा मक जमथा कर अकतररक कलकक्टर नक आपरथाजधिक षड़रमांत ककरथा हदै । ककन्हल दको खथातथादथारको कको बहह त जरथादथा मपुअथावजथा कमल रहथा थथा ककवल 4 हक० भभकम कक जलए 99.00 करकोड रूपरक रथाकश कथा भभगतथान हको रहथा थथा इस बथात कथा समांजथान लककर आवश्रक तस्दलक/कथारर्या वथाहल करनल थल ककन्तपु उनकक दथारथा अपनक कतर्या व्र एवमां दथाकरत्वको कथा कनवर्या हन न कर कपट पभणर्या आशर कक सथाथ आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत मक सथामलल रहक । इस प्रकथार भभ-अजर्या न मक बलल नथागवमांशल एवम कनजलमथा कक अजधिग्रकहत भभकम कथा मपुआवजथा कवजधि कवरूद हदै । रह भभकम ग्रथामलण क्षकत कक हदै । जबकक इसक शहरल भभकम और नगर कनगम जगदलपपुर कक क्षकतथान्तगर्या त सस्थत भभकम बतथाकर मपुआवजथा कनधिथार्यारण ककरथा गरथा हदै । नगर कनगम सस्थत भभकम बतथानक कक जलए स्वरमां बलल नथागवमांशल नक भभकम कथा कर नगर कनगम और इसकक पभवर्या पमांचथारत मम पटथारथा हदै । इस समांबमांधि मम पटवथारल एवम रथाजस्व कनरलक्षक कक भभकमकथा कक जथामांच कक जलए बनथारल गरल टलम तत्कथाललन एस.डल.एम. शल जसरथारथाम कपुरर दथारथा बनथारल गरल जको अवदैधि हदै । रह टलम भभकम अजधिग्रहण अजधिकथारल अकत० कलकक्टर शल हलरथालथाल नथारक दथारथा बनथारल जथानल थल लकककन उन्हमनक मपुआवजथा कथा कनधिथार्यारण अवदैधि जथाच प्रकतवकदन पर ककरथा जको स्पष्टतत आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत, आपरथाजधिक दष्पु प्रकरणथा तथथा धिकोखथाधिड़ल एवमां दस्तथावकजको कक कभटरचनथा कथा अपरथाधि हदै । बलल नथागवमांशल एवम कनजलमथा पकत टल.व्हल. रकव कक इस आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत मम भभकमकथा हदै । क्रकोकक उसनक अजधिक मपुआवजथा प्रथाकप Page 17 of 96 कक जलए ग्रथामलण क्षकत कक भभकम कको शहरल भभकम बतथानक कक जलए नगर कनगम कको टकक्स भल पमांचथारत कको दकर टकक्स सकहत पटथारथा हदै । इसमक रथाजस्व कक पटवथारल धिरम नथारथारण सथाहह , रथाजस्व कनरलक्षक अजभर्यान शलवथास्तव, तहसललदथार दलन दरथाल मण्डथावल, एस.डल.एम. जसरथारथाम कपुरर एवमां भभ- अजर्या न अजधिकथारल हलरथालथाल नथारक कक भभकमकथा भल आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत मक हदै । क्रकोकक ग्रथामलण क्षकत कक भभकम कको शहरल भभकम मथानकर मपुआवजथा कथा कनधिथार्यारण ककरथा गरथा हदै जबकक अन्र अजधिग्रकहत भभकम कथा मपुआवजथा उन्हकोनक पलल कको ग्रथामलण क्षकत मथानकर ककरथा हदै । पलल ग्रथाम मम 07 खथातथा कक भभकम कको अजधिग्रहण ककरथा गरथा हदै । जजसमक 05 खथातथा कको शहरल क्षकत एवमां 02 खथातथा कको ग्रथामलण क्षकत मथानकर गणनथा कक गई हदै । जबकक पलल पभणर्या ग्रथामलण क्षकत हदै । इसक कभल भल शहरल रथा नगर कनगम क्षकत अन्तगर्या त ससम्मजलत नहल ककरथा गरथा हदै । रह आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत इसजलए ककरथा गरथा क्रकोकक ग्रथामलण क्षकत मक 500 वगर्या मलटर तक हल गणनथा वगर्या मलटर कक आधिथार पर कक जथातल हदै । जबकक नगरल क्षकत मक कपृकष भभकम कथा 0.202 हकक्टकरर तक सभल डथारवटरड एवमां नजभल भभकम कथा वगर्या मलटर कक आधिथार पर गणनथा हकोतल हदै । इस प्रकथार इन खथातथादथारको कको आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत दथारथा अधिलकतम रथाकश मपुआवजथा कक रूप मम दल गई एवम धिकोखथाधिड़ल दस्तथावकजको कक कभटरचनथा कक गई हदै । शहरल क्षकत मथानकर भल रकद इन खथातको कक मपुआवजथा कथा कनधिथार्यारण ककरथा जथार तको भल ककवल बलल नथागवमांशल एवमां कनजलमथा अत्रजधिक रथाकश दल गई हदै जको इनकक आपरथाजधि षडरमांत कथा प्रभथाव हदै । अतत समांबमांजधित पटवथारल धिमर्या नथारथारण सथाहह , रथाजस्व कनरलक्षक, अजभर्यान शलवथास्तव, तहसललदथार दलनदरथाल मण्डथावल, अनपु० अजधि० (रथा०) सलरथारथाम कपुरर, अपर कलकक्टर हलरथालथाल नथारक प्रभथारल उप पमांजलरक जलकपक ककौशल ठथाकपुर IRCON अजधिकथारल सपुरश क बल० कमतथालल एवम ए०आर० मभकतर्या , वन पररक्षकत अजधिकथारल शल आर रथाव सकहत बलल नथागवमांशल एवमां कनजलमथा पकत टल.व्हल. रकव सभल आपरथाजधिक षडरमांत मम शथाकमल रहक हदै इस प्रकथार कलकक्टर कक ररपकोटर्या स्पष्टतत भथादकव कक धिथारथा 109, 120 बल, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 407, 408, 409 कक अपरथाधि कक पपुकष्ट करतक हदै । अतत इन धिथारथाओ पर अकभरपुकको कक कवरूद समांजकर अपरथाधि कक प्रथाथकमकक दजर्या कर कथारर्या वथाहल कक जथातल हदै । कथारथार्यालर कलकक्टर एवमां जजलथा दण्डथाजधिकथारल बस्तर जगदलपपुर कथा जथापन पपृथक सक समांलग कक जथातल हदै ।"
8. Thereafter, on 05.08.2019 without application of mind or conducting any kind of preliminary investigation whatsoever, the Station House Officer issued two letters to the Bank of Baroda, Page 18 of 96 Jagdalpur Branch, seeking that the bank account owned by the petitioner be frozen with immediate effect. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the legality and propriety of the report, FIR bearing Crime No. 409/2019 and subsequent letters dated 05.08.2019 issued by the respondent No. 3 freezing the bank account maintained by the petitioner. It has been further contended that the proceeding has been initiated without jurisdiction, FIR has been registered mechanically without any application of mind and thereafter, the bank account has been breezed in illegal manner and this resulted in violation of the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Sections 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
9. It has been further contended that since the land acquisition proceeding has been completed under the Railways Act which is a parliamentary legislation and all the authorities involved in the process of acquisition for railway projects are involved to act under the Central Government, the State Government has no jurisdiction to play in the process of acquisition of land under the Railways Act. It has been further contended that the only role assigned to the Collector of a district under the Railways Act is provided under Section 20-I which states in clause (b) of sub section (2) that in case any person refuses or fails to comply with any direction made under Section 20-I(1) to the owner of the land to surrender or deliver possession of the land, the competent authority shall apply to the Collector of the District to seek enforcement of such surrender or delivery of the land to the competent authority. Therefore, the whole proceeding is without jurisdiction and authority under Section 20D(3) of the Railways Act.
10. It has been further contended that the scheme of the Railway Act makes it clear that no authority other than one which has a role under the statute, can interfere with the process of acquiring land under the Railways Act. It has been further contended that Page 19 of 96 the conclusions drawn in the report of the Collector are without any merit as the principles on which the compensation has been determined and the process followed are both correct in accordance with law, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Collector in its report is illegal and same deserves to be quashed by this court. It has been further contended that as per Section 20G of the Railways Act read with Section 26 along with the First Schedule to the Right to Fair Compensation Act, proceeding for determination of market value of land which has been strictly followed while determining the compensation, therefore, there is no illegality in determining the compensation and same is in accordance with law, therefore, registration of FIR and the report is illegal. The compensation awarded to the petitioner was challenged by respondent No. 6 before the Commissioner, Bastar, who has appointed as Arbitrator under the Railways Act on the ground of miscalculation of the applicable rates, therefore, prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner for committing any fraud upon the authorities or upon the Railway. On the above factual matrix, the petitioner has prayed that the Collector has not vested any power or authority under the Railways Act to enquire about legality and propriety of quantum of compensation awarded by the competent authority, therefore, reopening of the entire acquisition proceedings which is attained its finality is illegal and deserves to be quashed and prayed for grant of following reliefs;
"10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writs), order(s), or direction9s) to set aside and quash the report of the respondent No.2 Collector dated 30-7-2019 and the FIR dated 4-8-2019 in Crime No 409 of 2019, registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar under Sections 109, 120-B, 467, 468, 471, 406, 408, 409 of IPC and letter No. 1274 and 1283 dated 5-8-2019 issued by the respondent No.3- SHO to respondent No.4 Bank seeking to freeze the Bank Account Nos.Page 20 of 96
10122000007188, 10120400000117 and
10120100010115;
10.2. That, the Honorable Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the respondent No.2 collector is not vested with any kind of authority under the Railway Act to order on enquiry into the quantum of compensation awarded by the competent authority under the Railways Act and, thereby, reopen the land acquisition proceeding which has attained finality by virtue of award dated 12-02-2018.
10.3. That, cost of the petition.
10.4. That, any other relief which this Honorable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
11. This Court vide its order dated 04.10.2019 had directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing as same question was raised in another petition bearing WPCR No. 674 of 2019 wherein this Court has passed an order granting interim relief of 'no coercive steps' be taken against the petitioner.
12. State has filed its return on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 mainly contending that the instant petition is not maintainable in its present form as Writ Petition (Cr.) as the petitioner has sought quashing of the Collector's enquiry report dated 30.07.2019 and also sought quashing of subsequent FIR , but from the bare perusal of the pleadings of the Writ Petition (Cr.), it is ample clear that the petition is basically against the enquiry report of the Collector, It has been contended by the State in its return that from the news report published regarding large scale irregularities and illegalities committed in land acquisition proceedings pertaining to Bastar Rail Project, the matter came to the notice of the administration of District Bastar. The Commissioner, Revenue Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar who is also an arbitrator appointed by the Government of India in respect of the above-mentioned land acquisition, vide its letter dated 22.07.2019 directed the Collector, District- Bastar, Page 21 of 96 Jagdalpur to examine the matter and to enquire into allegations leveled against the land acquisition process and the calculation and payment made therein. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction of the Commissioner, Revenue, Bastar Division, District Bastar, respondent No.2 Collector, District Bastar initiated a detailed inquiry into the entire acquisition and it was revealed that the land acquisition officer had completely failed to follow the provisions of the Act, 2013 and relevant rules while determining the compensation. It has been further revealed that large scale illegality has been committed in acquisition of land of village Palli which comes under the Gram Panchayat Kumravand. It has been further submitted that five out of seven Khatas of village Palli have been considered to be part of Municipal Council Jagdalpur whereas the remaining two Khatas have been considered to be rural areas. It is submitted that the village Palli is completely rural area and none of the Khatas of the said village has been included in the urban area as per the notification dated 4-9-2002 (Annexure R/2). The relevant portion of the said notification is extracted below :-
परथार्यावरण एवमां नगरलर कवकथास कवभथाग ममांतथालर, दथाऊ कल्रथाण जसमांह भवन, रथारपपुर रथारपपुर, कदनथामांक 3 जसतम्बर 2002 अजधिसभचनथा क्रमथामांक 4719/18/2002.-रथाजर शथासन दथारथा, छतलसगढ नगरपथाजलकथा अजधिकनरम, 1961 कक धिथारथा-5(क) कक उपधिथारथा (1) मम प्रदत शककरम कथा प्ररकोग करतक हह ए नगरपथाजलकथा पररषदद जगदलपपुर जजलथा-बस्तर कक वतर्या मथान सलमथा मम अनपुसभचल-1 मम दशथार्याई गई अनपुसथार कनम्नजलजखत क्षकतम कको ससम्मजलत ककरथा जथातथा हदैत-
अनपुसभचल-1 जजलथा बस्तर कक नगरपथाजलकथा पररषदद जगदलपपुर कक सलमथा मम ससम्मजलत ककरक जथानक वथालक ग्रथामम कथा कववरण रथाजस्व क्रमथामांक तथथा सवर क्रमथामांक व क्षकतफल कनम्नथानपुसथार हदैत-
(1) ग्रथाम सरगलपथाल : ग्रथाम सरगलपथाल कथा सवर नमांबर 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, तहसलल जगदलपपुर 10 एवमां 3/1 ग कथा टपु कड़था, क्षकतफल 33.600/13598 हकक्टर.Page 22 of 96
(2) ग्रथाम कमांगकोलल : सवर नमां. 1 सक 76 तक, 80, 83 सक 99 तक, तहसलल जगदलपपुर 121/1 कथा समांपभणर्या क्षकत, क्षकतफल-
616.85/290.827 हकक्टर.
(3) ग्रथाम धिरमपपुरथा : सवर नमां. 1 सक 117 तक, 122, 123, 124, तहसलल जगदलपपुर 141, 142 तक समांपभणर्या क्षकत, क्षकतफल-
233.758 हकक्टर.
(4) ग्रथाम अघनपपुर : सवर नमां. 1 सक 139/1 कथा टपु कड़था, 140 सक 147 तहसलल जगदलपपुर तक, 150 सक 152 तक समांपभणर्या क्षकत, क्षकतफल-
279.989 हकक्टर.
(5) ग्रथाम पखनथागपुड़था : सवर नमां. 1/1 सक 97/3 तक समस्त सवर नमां. एवमां तहसलल जगदलपपुर समांपभणर्या क्षकत, क्षकतफल-189.567 हकक्टर.
(6) ग्रथाम फकजरपपुर : सवर नमां. 1/1 क सक 27 तक समस्त सवर नमां. समांपभणर्या तहसलल जगदलपपुर क्षकत, क्षकतफल-118.391 हकक्टर.
(7) ग्रथाम हथाटकचकोरथा : सवर नमां. 1/1 सक 230 तक समस्त सवर नमां. एवमां
तहसलल जगदलपपुर समांपभणर्या क्षकत सकहत.
(8) ग्रथाम करकथापथाल : सवर नमां. 1/1 सक 26/1 तक, 133/1,
तहसलल जगदलपपुर 133/8, 135/1, 134/1 कथा समांपभणर्या क्षकत,
क्षकतफल-54.875 हकक्टर.
(9) ग्रथाम ककोहकथापथाल : सवर नमां. 1/2 सक 85 तक समस्त सवर नमांबर एवमां
तहसलल जगदलपपुर समांपभणर्या क्षकत, क्षकतफल-75.015 हकक्टर.
(10) ग्रथाम आसनथा : सवर नमां. 266/330 सक 628/1 तक आमां कशक
तहसलल जगदलपपुर क्षकत, क्षकतफल-260.468 हकक्टर.
(11) ग्रथाम जगदलपपुर : सवर नमां. 1 सक 146/35 तक समस्त सवर नमां. एवमां
जगदलपपुर खथास समांपभणर्या क्षकत सकहत क्षकतफल-189.344 हकक्टर.
अनपुसभचल-2
अनपुसभचल-1 मम दकशर्या त क्षकत कको ससम्मजलत करनक कक पश्चथातद नगरपथाजलकथा कक पपुनरलकक्षत व समांशकोजधित सलमथा कनम्नथानपुसथार हदैत- उतर मम ग्रथाम आसनथा कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 456, 450, 443, 440, 436, 434, 418, 417, 414, 330, 331, 336, 332, 340, 341/1, 243, 245/3, 345, 346 इन्दथावतल नदल कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 628/1 ग्रथाम जगदलपपुर कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 10, 12, 28 ग्रथाम ककोहकथापथाल कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 82, 76, 20, 19, 18, 17, 19, 15, 14, 9, 6, 3, 2, 5/3, Page 23 of 96 5/1, 34/2, 32/1, 36 तथथा दलपत सथागर तथालथाब कथा पथार हकोतक हह ए ग्रथाम धिरमपपुरथा कथा सवर क्रमथामांक कथा पथार हकोतक हह ए ग्रथाम धिरमपपुरथा कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 117, 122, 123, 124, 141, 29, 1/1, 1/3, 1/2 एवमां 1/21.
पसश्चम मम ग्रथाम कमांगकोलल कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 1, 2, 3, 4, 121/11, 7, 99/1 कथा टपु कड़था 88, 95/2, 95/1, 96, 89/1, 83, 80, 76 ग्रथाम अघनपपुर कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 139/1 कथा टपु कड़था.
दकक्षण मम ग्रथाम अघनपपुर कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 147, 149/1 ग्रथाम सरगलपथाल कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 1, 2 एवमां 3 कथा टपु कड़था ग्रथाम फकजरपपुर कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 1/2 ररजवर्या फथारकस्ट सक रकल्वक लथाइन ककनथारक तक ग्रथाम ककोहकथापथाल कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 134/1, 1/1, 133/1, 133/8, 4/2, 8/1, 47/1, 11/2, 11/1, 20/1, 29/1, 24/1, 25/1, एवमां 26/1.
पभवर्या मम ग्रथाम ककोहकथापथाल कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 20, 19, ग्रथाम हथाटकचकोरथा कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 230, 229, 203, 202, 201, 190/3, 191, 192, 198, 197, 196, 195, 194, 193, 174, 172, 162, 169/1, 164, 163, 193, 165, 166, 146/1, एवमां 145, ग्रथाम पखनथागपुड़था कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 97/2, 90, 80, 82, 65/2, 64, 63, 62, 61.49/2. 47, 37/1, 30, 29, 23/1 ग्रथाम आसनथा कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 626, 625, 469/2, 465, 464, 457, ग्रथाम करकथापथाल कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 26/1 सक ग्रथाम पखनथागपुड़था कथा सवर क्रमथामांक 30 तक तथथा गकोरररथाबहथार कक ककनथारक तक. नकोटत-
इन्दथावतल नदल कक नरथा पभल सक ग्रथाम आसनथा तक उतरलर कदशथा मम नकशनल हथाईवक मथागर्या नमां. 43 कक नरक और पपुरथानक मथागर्या कक समांगम तक एवमां नवकनकमर्या त मथागर्या कक समांगम सक इन्दथावतल नदल मम कनकमर्या त पपुरथानथा पपुजलरथा सक ग्रथाम ककोहकथापथाल कथा समस्त आबथादल क्षकत व इन्दथावतल नदल कक ककनथारक-ककनथारक ककोहकथापथाल कक सरहद सक दलपत सथागर तथालथाब कक पथार (बथामांधि) तक तथथा वहथामां सक ग्रथाम धिरमपपुरथा कक कशव ममांकदर सक हकोतक हह ए ककोसमपुमांडथा तथालथाब तक, वहथामां सक ग्रथाम धिरमपपुरथा कक सरहद सक हकोतक हह ए पसश्चमल कदशथा मम कचतककोट रकोड तक तथथा कचतककोट रकोड कक पलल मथागर्या एवमां गलदम रकोड सक आनक वथालक दकोनम मथागर मां कक समांगम सक हकोतक हह ए रकल्वक लथाइन कक ककनथारक तक तथथा दकक्षण मम रकल्वक लथाइन कक ककनथारक सक हकोतक हह ए गकोरररथा बहथार नथालथा मम बनक रकल्वक पपुजलरथा तक तथथा पभवर्या गकोरररथा बहथार नथालथा मम बनक रकल्वक पपुजलरथा सक गकोरररथा बहथार नथालथा कक ककनथारक-ककनथारक हकोतक हह ए पभवर्या कदशथा मम जरपपुर रकोड मथागर्या पर बनक पक्कथा पपुजलरथा तथथा वहथामां सक उतरल कदशथा मम नकशनल हथाइवक मथागर्या नमां. 43 कक नरक और पपुरथानक मथागर्या रथारपपुर समांगम तक.
13. It has been further stated that as per the above mentioned notification, only villages Sargipal, Kangoli, Dharampura, Aghanpur, Pakhnaguda, Frezarpur, Haatkachara, Kohakapal, Page 24 of 96 Asna and Jagdalpur have been included within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur. It has been further contended by the State that the village Palli is not included within the limits of Jagdalpur Municipal Corporation. As per notification No. F-1- 71/18/2004 of 2004 issued by the Department of Housing and Environment, Government of Chattisgarh, the Jagdalpur Municipal Corporation was framed by dividing the area in 40 wards and the limits of the wards were determined. The ward No.37 has been notified as Lok Manya Tilak Ward and the western limits of the said ward has been determined till the eastern limits of the village Palli. After the said notification, till date, no modification has been made to the geographical limits of the Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur. It has been further contended that vide notification dated 12.07.2004, the Gram Panchayats have been formed under Section 129(B)(1) of the Chhattigarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and at serial No.21 of the said notification the Gram Panchayat has been formed by including the village Kumravand and the Village- Palli. The relevant portion of the said notification is extracted below for ready reference:-
कथारथार्यालर कलकक्टर (पमांचथारत शथाखथा), जजलथा बस्तर (छतलसगढ) जगदलपपुर, कदनथामांक 12 जपुलथाई 2004 अजधिसभचनथा क्रमथामांक/1595/पमांचथारत/पमांचथा. कनवथार्या./2004-छतलसगढ शथासन, पमांचथारत एवमां ग्रथामलण कवकथास कवभथाग कक अजधिसभचनथा क्रमथामांक एफ 1/11/95/22/पमां.-2, कदनथामांक 23 फरवरल, 1999 दथारथा प्रदत शककरम कको प्ररकोग मम लथातक हह ए, छतलसगढ पमांचथारत रथाज अजधिकनरम, 1993 कक धिथारथा 129 (ख)(1) कक प्रथावधिथानम कक अधिलन मम कदनकश कपुमथार शलवथास्तव, कलकक्टर, जजलथा बस्तर, एतद्दथारथा नलचक दल गई सथारणल कक स्तमांभ (3) मम दशथार्यारक गरक गथामांव/गथामांवम कक समभह कक जलरक जजसकक जनसमांख्रथा सथारणल कक स्तमांभ (4) मम दशथार्यारल गई हदै, सथारणल कक स्तमांभ (2) मम उकलजखत नथाम सक अजधिकनरम कक प्ररकोजनम कक जलरक "ग्रथाम" कक रूप मम कवकनकदर्या ष्ट करतथा हह मां, तथथा सथावर्या जकनक जथानकथारल कक जलए प्रकथाकशत करतथा हह मां.
14. Again, vide notification dated 22.07.2014, Gram Panchayat Kumravand has been shown to be included in village Page 25 of 96 Kumravand and Village- Palli. The relevant portion of the said notification (Annexure R/5) is extracted below for ready reference:-
कथारथार्यालर, कलकक्टर, जजलथा बस्तर (छतलसगढ) बस्तर, कदनथामांक 21 जपुलथाई 2014 अजधिसभचनथा क्रमथामांक/482/पमांचथारत/2014-15.-छतलसगढ शथासन, पमांचथारत एवमां ग्रथामलण कवकथास कवभथाग कक अजधिसभचनथा क्रमथामांक एफ-1-11-95-22 पमां.-02, कदनथामांक 23 फरवरल 1999 दथारथा प्रदत शककरम कको प्ररकोग मम लथातक हह ए, छतलसगढ पमांचथारत रथाज अजधिकनरम 1993 (क्रमथामांक 1 सनद 1994) (जजसक इसकक पश्चथातद उक अजधिकनरम कहथा गरथा हदै) कक धिथारथा 129 ख (1) कक प्रथावधिथानम कक अधिलन मम अमांककत आनमांद, कलकक्टर, जजलथा बस्तर समांलग सथारणल (जजसक, इसकक पश्चथातद "सथारणल" कहथा गरथा हदै) कक स्तमांभ (4) मम दशथार्यारक गरक गथामांव रथा गथामांधिल कक समभह कक जलए जजसकक जनसमांख्रथा सथारणल कक स्तमांभ (5) मम दशथार्यारल गई हदै, सथारणल कक स्तमांभ (3) मम उलकजखत नथाम सक उक अजधिकनरम कक प्ररकोजनको कक जलए "ग्रथाम" कक रूप मम कवकनकदर्या ष्ट करतथा हह मां तथथा सथावर्या जकनक जथानकथारल कक जलए एतद्दथारथा प्रकथाकशत ककरथा जथातथा हदै.
इस स्थथाकपत ग्रथाम मम अजधिकनरम कक धिथारथा 8 (क) कक अनपुसथार ग्रथाम पमांचथारत कथा गठन ककरथा जथारकगथा इस प्रकथार गकठत ग्रथाम पमांचथारतम कको अजधिकनरम कक धिथारथा 11 कक अमांतगर्या त वकणर्या त अजधिकनरम कक प्ररकोजन कक जलए आवश्रक अन्र समस्त शककरथामां प्रथाप हमगल.
15. From perusal of the aforesaid notifications, it is clear that the village Palli is rural area and does not come within the limit of Municipal Corporation of Jagdalpur. However, with the sheer motive to provide unlawful benefit to the beneficiaries of land acquisition, five Khatas of village Palli has been shown as urban area and huge compensation has been illegally paid to the beneficiaries. It has been further revealed that the maximum numbers of complaints were pertaining to the land acquisition relating to the four villages under the Jagdalpur block, specially the acquisition in village Palli and further contended that from perusal of the report it is clear that maximum areas of land has been acquired in village Kangoli and comparatively very less area has been acquired in village Palli. However, out of the compensation of Rs.152 Crores distributed in Jagdalpur block, Page 26 of 96 Rs.99.07 Crores have been distributed towards seven Khatas of village Palli. Moreover, out of 7 beneficiaries just two beneficiaries have been awarded Rs.95.82 Crores out of Rs.99.07 Crores whereas the remaining 101 land owners have been jointly awarded only Rs.53.51 Crores of compensation. It has been further contended that the total compensation which has been awarded to the land acquisition proceeding, 64.90% of compensation is for the land belonging to village Palli. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the bank accounts of the petitioner Neelima Belsaria and Bali Nagwanshi have been freezed, the commissioner, Bastar Division , Jagdalpur, District Bastar has been appointed as the Arbitrator by the Government of India in respect of the above-mentioned land acquisition proceedings and being the arbitrator, the commissioner had all the authority and power to direct the Collector, District Bastar to conduct an enquiry into the allegations regarding large scale illegality, therefore, proceeding initiated by the Collector is proper and just and same is not liable to be interfered with and the respondent No.2 Collector is competent authority to enquire into illegality committed by its subordinate officers. It has been contended by the State that as per the provisions of the Act, 2013, the Collector has been authorized to determine the market value of the land to be acquired for determining the amount of compensation and for awarding the solatium amount. As such, the Collector was well within his power for conducting enquiry into the allegations of illegality committed in land acquisition proceeding. It has been further contended that from bare perusal of enquiry, it would reveal that the findings arrived at by the District Collector and material collected during investigating enquiry are legal and justified and it has been contended hat various steps have been taken by the officers for unlawful gain to the petitioner and Neelima Belsaria, for the aforesaid purpose, fraudulently their lands have been shown to be of much higher Page 27 of 96 value than its actual value, thereby causing huge financial loss to the Government. The acts of the officers involved in the acquisition amounts to fraud and misappropriation. It has been further contended that IRCON Limited had been given the responsibility to conduct the survey, determination of rail route and its construction and earlier, the survey for the railway line had been conducted in the year 2007, however, after the work was allotted to the IRCON limited, a fresh survey was conducted, wherein major modification was done in the Railway route which considerably increased the compensation amount for the land acquisition. The station could have been built at village Kangoli or Ghatpadmour, but without considering the available option, the land of village Palli was selected. The entrance to the railway station has been proposed through a very narrow plot near Graveyard which is situated at Khasra No.122 which is a government land. The land belonging to the petitioners Neelima Belsaria and Bali Nagwanshi is next to the Graveyard and its size value is extremely low. In connivance with the petitioner Neelima Belsaria and Bali Nagwanshi, the then Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jagdalpur and other officers proposed for acquisition of land. It has been further revealed that large scale illegality has been committed in acquisition of land of village Palli which comes under the Gram Panchayat Kumravand. It has been further submitted that five out of seven Khatas of Village- Palli have been considered to be part of Municipal Council Jagdalpur whereas the remaining two Khatas have been considered to be rural areas.
16. It has been further stated that as per the above mentioned notification, only villages Sargipal, Kangoli, Dharampura, Aghanpur, Pakhnaguda, Frezarpur, Haatkachara, Krkapal, Kohakapal, Asna and Jagdalpur have been included within the limits of Municipal Council, Jagdalpur. It has been further contended by the State that the village Palli is not included Page 28 of 96 within the limits of Jagdalpur Municipal Corporation. As per notification No. F-1-71/18/2004 of 2004 issued by the Department of Housing and Environment, Government of Chhattisgarh, Jagdalpur Municipal Corporation was framed by dividing the area in 40 wards and the limits of the wards were determined. The Ward No. 37 has been notified as Lok Manya Tilak Ward and the western limits of the said ward have been determined till the eastern limits of the Village- Palli. After the said notification, till date, no modification has been made to the geographical limits of the Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur.
17. Learned State counsel would further submit that the petitioner is not entitled to get compensation as awarded by the Competent Authority in its award as per sub rule (3) of the Rules, market price determination of immovable property if the land is more than 0.50 hectare then calculation has to be made as per the relevant sub rule (3) of Praroop Teen which are extracted below for convenience:-
प्रथारूप "तलन" कक समांबमांधि मम उपबमांधि कनरम-3,
3. कपृकष भभकम कक जलरक उपबमांधि रकद ग्रथामलण क्षकत मम ककसल एक दस्तथावकज कक दथारथा एक सक अजधिक खसरथा नम्बरम कक कपृकष भभकमरम कथा कवक्रर ककरथा जथातथा हदै, तको कपुल रकबथा 0.050 हकक्टकरर सक अजधिक हकोनक पर भभकम कक ककस्म कक अनपुसथार, समस्त रकबक कथा मभल्रथामांकन हकक्टकरर दर सक ककरथा जथावकगथा ।"
And प्रथारूप "एक" कक समांबमांधि मम उपबमांधि कनरम-9,
9. ग्रथामलण क्षकत मम पररवकतर्या त भभकम कवक्रर ककरक जथानक पर, जहथामां उस क्षकत मम मपुख्रमथागर्या /जसमांकचत/अजसमांकचत कक दरम कनधिथार्याररत हम, उस क्षकत कक जसमांकचत भभकम कक दर कथा ढथाई गपुनथा कर बथाजथार मभल्र कक गणनथा कक जथारकगल। भभकम मपुख्र मथागर्या पर सस्थत हकोनक पर उस क्षकत कक मपुख्र मथागर्या कक उस कथा ढथाई गपुनथा कर बथाजथार मभल्र कक गणनथा कक जथारकगल, परन्तपु रह भल कक मपुख्रमथागर्या कक दर सक रकद जसमांकचत भभकम कक दर अजधिक हको तको अजधिकतम मभल्र मथान्र ककरथा जथारकगथा ।"Page 29 of 96
18. It has been further contended that from bare perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is clear that calculation of compensation of any rural area having area more than 500 square meters should be calculated at hectare rate prescribed in market price determination of immovable property guidelines. Rs. 50,61,000/- per hectare is prescribed for the village Palli as per the guidelines of 2017-18. If the land is diverted according to Rule 9 as mentioned above hectare rate is multiplied by a factor 2.5 for calculation of compensation of diverted land situated in rural area. According to Rule 10 of Market Price Determination of Immovable Property guidelines, rate has to be calculated in the following manner.
"प्रथारूप "एक" कक समांबमांधि मम उपबमांधि कनरम-10, नगरलर आवथासलर क्षकत मम ऐसल समांपजत जको मपुख्र रकोड सक अन्दर सस्थत हको परन्तपु जजसकथा उपरकोग व्रथावसथाकरक/औद्यकोकगक प्ररकोजन कक जलरक ककरथा जथा रहथा हको, उसक क्षकत कक जलरक कनधिथार्याररत दर मम 25 प्रकतशत वपृकद कर बथाजथार मभल्र कक गणनथा कक जथारकगल।"
19. It is further contended by the State that by reading the aforementioned provision, it is clear that additional 25% compensation for commercial land is for Urban, off road, residential areas but petitioner's land is adjacent to Jagdalpur- Chitrakot main road and is in rural non-residential area. It is further contended that the petitioner purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 123/1 admeasuring 1.99 hectare by registered sale deed dated 23.01.2015. Market value was calculated by taking hectare rate for village Palli and the petitioner has paid stamp duty on market value calculated as above. In 2014-15 guidelines hectare rate for village Palli for land situated in all main roads was Rs. 40,16,500/- and total market price comes to Rs. 79,93,000/-. It clearly shows that when the petitioner purchased the land and he paid stamp duty on market price calculated on the basis of hectare rate but demanding compensation in square meter rate is clearly in violation of principle laid down in market Page 30 of 96 price determination of immovable property guidelines. It has been further contended that the petitioner along with other petitioner are the only persons whose lands are situated in rural area but compensation awarded to them considering their land as situated in urban area clearly shows revenue officials' favoritism in favour of the petitioner and other petitioner. It is further submitted that total 4.184 hectares were acquired from village Palli and amount awarded of Rs.99.07 crores which is 64.9% of the total compensation has been paid. It is submitted that the Additional Collector in collusion with other officials has marked the land of 05 account holders including the petitioner as urban land and granted them compensation on urban rates whereas other 2 account holders adjacent to them have been granted on rural rates. Similarly, in neighbouring village Ghatpadmur lands acquired which are adjacent to petitioner's land are granted compensation on rural rates. This act shows malafide exercise of power, fraud, arbitrariness, unreasonableness and causing huge financial loss to the public exchequer which is against market price determination of immovable property guidelines 2017-18.
20. It has been further contended by the State counsel that the enquiry report of the Collector, District- Bastar is based on ample documentary evidence through which the large scale illegalities are proved. As the above-mentioned enquiry was initial and fact finding one, and not a departmental enquiry, therefore, no notice was required to be given to the delinquent officials. Various land owners have raised objections to the land acquisition proceedings and disputes have been referred to the arbitrator i.e. Commissioner, Revenue, Bastar Division. It is further submitted that the plea of land acquisition proceedings being under the Railways Act cannot be taken by the petitioner for challenging the FIR in connection with Crime No. 409/2019 for the reason that the direction for registration of FIR for Page 31 of 96 commission of cognizable offence does not rest on the competence of an authority to enquire into the acquisition procedure. If there is prima facie material to show the commission of cognizable offence is available, the FIR can always be registered by the Police and the Collector being the head of District Administration has jurisdiction and power for directing the Police to register the FIR.
21. It is further contended that the petitioner has accepted that his land is adjacent to Municipal boundary which does not mean within municipal boundary. The land acquisition for Rowghat - Jagdalpur special railway project has been carried out in accordance with Railways Act, 1989 as amended in 2008. The necessary provisions were enacted in 2013, therefore, compensation has to be determined as per Schedule 1, 2 and 3 of the Land Inquisition Act. It has been further contended that as per guidelines of 2017-2018 different rates for land which are adjacent to road and far from road have been prescribed. The petitioner has selectively produced principle which deals with only what lands have to be considered as land situated on road. According to the guidelines for year 2017-18 in urban area, lands which are situated upto a distance 20 meters from the main road are considered as lands situated on road likewise in rural areas which are situated up to a distance of 46 meters from the main road are considered as lands situated on road. The relevant rules are extracted below for convenience:-
प्रथारूप "एक" कक समांबमांधि मम उपबमांधि कनरम-7, मपुख्र सड़क सक 20 मलटर कक गहरथाई/दरभ ल तक सस्थत भभखण्डम कको मपुख्र सड़क सक लगल मथानकर मपुख्र सड़क कक जलए कनधिथार्याररत दर अनपुसथार प्रकत वगर्या मलटर मम बथाजथारमभल्र कक गणनथा कक जथावकगल परन्तपु रह भल कक ककोई पक्षकथार 20 मलटर दरभ ल सक अजधिक गहरथाई तक कक भभकम क्रर करतथा हदै तब सम्पभणर्या भभखण्ड कको मपुख्र सड़क सक लगथा हह आ मथानकर बथाजथारमभल्र कक गणनथा कक जथावकगल"
प्रथारूप "तलन" कक समांबमांधि मम उपबमांधि कनरम-10, Page 32 of 96 सड़क सक दकोनम ओर 46 मलटर कक दरभ ल तक सस्थत कपृकशभभकमरम कको सड़क सक लगल मथान कर उसकक जलए कनधिथार्याररत दर कक अनपुसथार मभल्रथामांकन ककरथा जथावकगथा, परमांतपु रह भल कक रकद ककोई पक्षकथार 46 मलटर कक गहरथाई/दरभ ल सक अजधिक गहरथाई तक कक भभकमक्रर करतथा हदै तब सम्पभणर्या रकबथा कको मभख्र सड़क सक लगथा हह आ मथानकर बथाजथारमभल्र कक गणनथा कक जथावकगल।
प्रथारूप "तलन" कक समांबमांधि मम उपबमांधि कनरम-3, कपृकष भभकम कक जलरक उपबमांधि रकद ग्रथामलण क्षकत मम ककसल एक दस्तथावकज कक दथारथा एक सक अजधिक खसरथा नम्बरम कक कपृकष भभकमरम कथा कवक्रर ककरथा जथातथा हदै, तको कपुल रकबथा 0.050 हकक्टकरर सक अजधिक हकोनक पर भभकम कक ककस्म कक अनपुसथार, समस्त रकबक कथा मभल्रथामांकन हकक्टकरर दर सक ककरथा जथावकगथा ।"
And प्रथारूप "एक" कक समांबमांधि मम उपबमांधि कनरम-9, ग्रथामलण क्षकत मम पररवकतर्या त भभकम कवक्रर ककरक जथानक पर, जहथामां उस क्षकत मम मपुख्रमथागर्या /जसमांकचत/अजसमांकचत कक दरम कनधिथार्याररत हम, उस क्षकत कक जसमांकचत भभकम कक दर कथा ढथाई गपुनथा कर बथाजथार मभल्र कक गणनथा कक जथारकगल । भभकम मपुख्र मथागर्या पर सस्थत हकोनक पर उस क्षकत कक मपुख्र मथागर्या कक उस कथा ढथाईगपुनथा कर बथाजथार मभल्र कक गणनथा कक जथारकगल, परन्तपु रह भल कक मपुख्रमथागर्या कक दर सक रकद जसमांकचत भभकम कक दर अजधिक हको तको अजधिकतम मभल्र मथान्र ककरथा जथारकगथा ।"
प्रथारूप "एक" कक समांबमांधि मम उपबमांधि कनरम-1, टलप-1 नगर कनगम कक नगरलर क्षकतम मम .202 हकक्टकरर सक अजधिक कपृकश भभकम कवक्रर हकोनक पर सम्पभणर्या रकबक कक जलए उस क्षकत हकतपु कनधिथार्याररत प्रकत हकक्टकरर दर सक बथाजथार मभल्र कक समांगण्नथा कक जथावकगल ।"
टलप-2 नगर कनगम क्षकतम मम ककसल एक दस्तथावकज कक दथारथा एक सक अजधिक खसरथा नमां. कक कपृकशभभकमरम कथा कवक्रर ककरक जथानक पर रकद कपुल रकबथा . 202 हकक्ट. सक अजधिक हको तको भभकम कक ककस्म कक अनपुसथार समस्त रकबक कथा मभल्रथामांकन हकक्टकरर दर सक ककरथा जथावकगथा । प्रथारूप "तलन" कक समांबमांधि मम उपबमांधि कनरम-3, कपृकशभभकम कक जलरक उपबमांधि रकद ग्रथामलण क्षकत मम ककसल एक दस्तथावकज कक दथारथा एक सक अजधिक खसरथा नम्बरम कक कपृकशभभकमरम कथा कवक्रर ककरथा जथातथा हदै, तको कपुल रकबथा 0.050 हकक्टकरर सक अजधिक हकोनक पर भभकम कक ककस्म कक अनपुसथार, समस्त रकबक कको मभल्रथामांकन हकक्टकरर दर सक ककरथा जथावकगथा ।"
Page 33 of 9622. It has been further contended that the petitioner has challenged the compensation awarded by the Additional Collector before the Commissioner Revenue Bastar Division whereas the Arbitrator has enhanced compensation only on reports of Additional Collector, Railway authorities but after came to know about the collector's report dated 30.07.2019 have kept the order dated 11.07.2019 in abeyance the order vide its order dated 02.08.2019 and directed not to pay enhanced compensation to the petitioner. The report of the Collector clearly shows, prima facie that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. The Collector being head of the District Administration has jurisdiction and power to register the FIR, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
23. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has filed return contending that no relief has been claimed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 4 and respondent No.4 was discharging its duty by following the instruction of the letters dated 05.08.2019 issued by respondent No. 3/Station House Officer, Police Kotwali to freeze the bank account of the petitioners maintained at branch of respondent No.4 in view of reregistration of Crime No. 409 of 2019 registered against the petitioner at Police Kotwali, Jagdalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 407, 408, 409, 120-B and 109 of IPC, they have freezed the bank account of the petitioners and would submit that no relief has been sought against them.
24. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has filed its return contending that it is a joint venture project and MoU dated 09.05.2015 have been executed, IRCON has been nominated as the agency for picking up equity on behalf of Ministry of Railways with no financial commitment from Ministry of Railways. The agreement has to be executed by IRCON with the State Government, SAIL and NMDC as directed by the Page 34 of 96 Executive Director, Traffic Railway Board on 07-04-2015 to the Chief Secretary of the Govt. of Chattisgarh and as per policy of the Ministry pertaining to undertaking that joint venture a MoU was executed on 09.05.2015. As per the MoU, the cost of the project is Rs. 2000 Crores, therefore, this project is to be carried out through specific Joint Venture Company (JVC). The relevant clause of MoU, clause 6 & 7 are extracted below:-
"6. GoCG shall provide the land owned by State Government (Revenue land and Forest land) and value of such land shall be adjusted towards GoCG's equity share in the JVC as per Para 3 above. Cost of compensatory afforestation, net present value, wildlife management plan, demarcation, felling and other charges for diversion proposal of forest plan under Forest Conservation Act shall be borne by the JVC.
7. Acquisition of the privately owned land required for the project shall be made by the JVC as per the extant policy. JVC shall be responsible for payment of the compensation of the land and also implementation of the Rehabilitation plan asper LARR Act and Rehabilitation Policy opf the State Government. Government of CG shall extend all necessary assistance for these purposes and for expediting the land acquisition process".
25. Respondent No. 6 has filed its return reiterating the events which have been taken place from the initial stage i.e. from establishing a JVC vide notification dated 09-05-2015 consisting of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. (IRCON), National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Chhattisgarh Minerals Development Corporation Ltd (CMDC) took part to build, construct, operate and maintain Jagdalpur Rowghat Rail Corridor Project. As per the MoU, the Government of Chhattisgarh was required to facilitate the process of land acquisition, environmental and forest clearance including the transfer of government land to the Ministry of Railways.
Page 35 of 9626. The State Government was required to provide all the requisite statutory support whenever required to the joint venture for ensuring expeditious completion and commissioning of the project. Thereafter, notification dated 04.04.2016 was issued by the Central Government notifying the project as Special project. On 20.01.2017 the Additional Collector, District Bastar was appointed as competent authority for the purpose of land acquisition under Section 2 (7A) of the Railways Act, 1989. It has been further contended that there was large scale illegality in determining the compensation payable to the land-owners in respect of Palli village. Exorbitant and arbitrary compensation has been awarded to few land owners by treating their lands as urban lands as against rural lands. Petitioner Balil Nagwanshi has been awarded Rs.70.62 Crores for 2.69 hectares by treating his land as urban area whereas he was only entitled to Rs.7.79 Crores. Petitioner Neelima has been awarded Rs.25.19 Crores for only 1.040 hectares whereas she was entitled only to Rs.4.38 crores. Similarly, other land oustees of village Palli i.e., Pakali, Nagwanshi builders and developers have been paid Rs.2.28 Crores for 0.12 hectares though they were entitled to receive Rs.27 lakhs. It has been further contended that as per principles of determining compensation, each account has to be treated as a single unit even though the account consists of more than one khasra plot. The land acquisition in this case involved 108 accounts which had 15 accounts having more than one khasra plots while 13 accounts which had more than one Khasra plots were treated as single unit for awarding compensation only in 2 accounts separate computation was done in respect of each of the khasra plots falling within those 2 accounts. Thus, the net compensation awarded increased exponentially. The lands of both petitioner and Neelima have further been treated as lands situated adjacent to main road for obtaining 25% additional Page 36 of 96 compensation whereas those particular lands are not located in residential area.
27. It has been further contended that the complicity of the IRCON officials, the initial route of the land was diverted and a new station was created at village Palli in order to ensure that the lands of the accused persons can be acquired. It is also found that the lands were first purchased with the hope of getting them acquired for the said railway project. The accused persons entered motivating transactions for the purpose of making unlawful gains at the cost of the exchequer. The lands had been purchased by paying stamp duty as rural lands, the compensation has been awarded considering them as urban lands as the same could not be done unless the land owners proved that the status of the land had changed in the meantime. Though the calculation ought to have been made in terms of hectares, the compensation has been awarded by calculating in terms of square meters. It has been further contended that the report recommended for initiating departmental enquiry against the erring officials and also called for recovering excessive compensation paid to the land owners. The detailed report submitted by the Collector makes it evident that there has been a concerted criminal conspiracy between revenue officials and the land owners in getting the compensation awarded at exorbitant rates. It is not a case of mere illegality in awarding higher compensation which could be corrected either before the arbitrator or the judicial forums but a case of large scale fraud upon the public exchequer, therefore, on the report submitted by the Collector, FIR was registered against the officials, petitioner and other accused persons. The other land oustees had received exorbitant compensation against acquisition of their lands, therefore, the findings recorded in the report are legal and just. It has been further contended that the petitioner had purchased the land bearing khasra No.123/1 admeasuring 1.99 Page 37 of 96 hectare in 2015 when market rate value of the land was calculated by considering unit hectare rate prescribed for village Palli. Petitioner's land market price was 79.93 lakhs in 2015 and accordingly he paid 5% stamp duty which was Rs.3.99 lakhs. Now the petitioner has been awarded compensation by considering per square meter rate whereas Neelima Belsaria who is also an accused, was awarded compensation by considering hectare rate. Similarly, the petitioner was awarded 25% more compensation for 0.4 hectares of commercially diverted land which is against the provisions contained in guidelines rates for the year 2017-18. It has been further contended that in the original DPR for the Jagdalpur-Rowghat Rail Corridor Project, there was no station conceived at village Palli. The DPR has been changed without approval of BRPL Board which shows that petitioner with collusion of revenue officials and other officers of IRCON committed fraud. Respondent No. 6 has filed its return which is almost similar to the return filed by respondents No. 1 to 3/State, therefore, to avoid repeatition, brief contentions have been mentioned while mentioning the facts stated by respondent No. 6 in their return.
WPCR No. 674 of 201928. Petitioner No. 1/Siyaram Kurre, petitioner No. 2/Dindayal Mandavi, petitioner No. 3/Arjun Shrivastava & petitioner No. 4/Dharam Narayan Sahu, who were at the relevant time working as Additional Collector, Deputy Collector (Incharge Tahsildar), Naib Tahsildar & Patwari respectively, have jointly filed the present writ petition challenging the legallity and propriety of registration of FIR dated 04.08.2019 against them and also the enquiry reported dated 30.04.2019 submitted by the Collector reiterating the same stand taken by the petitioner in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 and other writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Collector was not competent under the Railway Act, 1982 to conduct such enquiry.
Page 38 of 9629. He would further submit that the enquiry report is perverse and without considering the fact that the petitioners have performed their duties for carrying out the said land acquisition under the Railway's Act, therefore, the Collector cannot be enquired into the land acquisition proceedings, which has already been taken by the Railway's officers, as per provisions of the Railway Act, 1989. All the officers who were government officials had acted under the Railway Act are being granted protection as per the Act, 1989. Since the petitioners have discharged their duties under the Railway Act, therefore, the Collector cannot exercise its jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry into which they have already discharged their official duties under the Railway Act, as such the report submitted by the Collected dated 30.07.2019 is contrary to the records on the basis of perverse finding recorded in the enquiry conducted by the Collector dated 30.07.2019. The subsequent registration of FIR is also illegal and deserves to be quashed by this Court.
30. The State has filed their return reiterating the stands already taken in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019.
31. The Union of India has also filed their return reiterating the stands already taken in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019.
32. This Court vide order dated 17.09.2021 has directed the State to file report with regard to the land acquisition proceedings whereby some doubt was raised in the report of the Collector about the quantum of the compensation. In pursuance of the same, the State has submitted its compliance report contending that the petitioner being revenue authorities while determining the compensation deliberately overlooked the aforesaid material facts and awarded more compensation in favour of the land owners considering the lands of Village- Palli comes under the urban area. However, the aforesaid records clearly reveal that the lands of Village- Palli come under Gram Panchayat Palli. He Page 39 of 96 would further submit that upon registration of offence under Crime No. 409/2019 at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Bastar for offence punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 406, 407, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, the relevant original records have been seized by the police of Police Station- Parpa, District- Bastar.
33. He would further submit that the Collector & District Magistrate, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar submitted enquiry reported before the State Government on 30.07.2019 which reflects irregularities committed by the petitioners by way of treating the Village- Palli comes under the territory of Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar. The petitioner being revenue authorities deliberately treated the lands of five land owners falling under the area of Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar and the land got acquired for the Rowghat-Jagdalpur Railway project. However, as per the records the lands under the Village- Palli come under the Gram Panchayat Palli. In order to describe the above facts a copy of the calculation sheet with respect to compensation towards land acquisition under the Village- Palli, Patwari Halka No. 2, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District- Bastar has been filed along with the report filed by the State.
34. He would further submit that the market value of the agricultural land was to be determined as per the guideline for the year 2017-2018, which prescribes the rate of land for the Village- Palli. As per the guidelines Rs. 50,61,000/- per hectare for the lands situated adjacent to the road, whereas Rs. 32,94,000/- for the land situated inside the village. The petitioners have calculated the compensation on the basis of Rs. 13,800/- per sq.ft. by treating the aforesaid land under the urban area. The copy of the map of Village- Panchayat Palli, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar has also been filed with the report.
35. He would further submit that the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Urban Development has issued notification dated Page 40 of 96 03.09.2002 with respect to inclusion of villages in the area of Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar where Village- Palli did not find place, hence, it is clear that Village- Palli does not come under the municipal area. The department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh has issued notification dated 12.07.2004 with respect to villages which come under the Gram Panchayats, wherein in column 3 (name of dependent village) the name of Village- Palli and Kumravand are mentioned under the Gram Panchayat Kumravand. Office of Collector, District- Bastar had issued notification dated 21.07.2014 with respect to constitution of Gram Panchayats, which reflects that at serial No. 23, Village- Palli comes under the Gram Panchayat Kumravand and would submit that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed.
WPCR No. 979 of 201936. Petitioner No. 1/ Neelima Belsaria, who was owner of the lands & petitioner No. 2/ T.V. Ravi Kurup, who is husband of petitioner No. 1, have filed this writ petition reiterating the same stand taken by the petitioner in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019. The petitioners have prayed that the impugned order dated 05.08.2019 (Annexure P/1) by which the bank account of the petitioner has been freezed, be kindly set aside by this Court and also prayed that the bank authority may also be directed to lift the hold on the bank accounts of the petitioners and to take appropriate action in releasing all the three bank accounts of the petitioners.
37. The State has filed their return reiterating the stand already taken by the State in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 and would submit that after considering the entire materials placed on records issued by the concerned Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar addressed to the Bank authorities to seize/freeze/seal the petitioners' Bank account as Page 41 of 96 Crime No. 409/2019 has been registered against them. He would further submit that there is violation of rules and quantum has been assessed on a higher side while land acquisition proceeding done by the Competent Authority, therefore, to safe guard the interest of public exchequer, the order has been issued and prayed for dismissal of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.).
38. Respondent No. 3/Bank of Baroda has also filed its return, in which they have stated that they have discharged their duties in compliance of the letter dated 05.08.2019 issued by Station House Officer/ respondent No. 1 and no relief has been sought against them, therefore, the instant writ petition so far as relating to them, may kindly be dismissed.
39. Respondent No. 2/Union of India has already filed their return reiterating the stands already taken by them in WPCR No. 1013 of 2019 and other writ petitions.
40. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed written submissions relying upon the same factual position and would submit that as per Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. deals with power of police officer to seize certain property. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogi 1, has held that a bank cannot be prohibited not to pay any amount out of the account of the accused to the accused nor can the accused be prohibited from taking away any property from the locker, as such an order would not be a `seizure' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
41. He would further submit that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Enrica Lexie Vs. Doramma2, has held at paragraph 13 that the police officer in course of investigation can seize any property under Section 102 if such property is alleged to be stolen or is suspected to be stolen or is the object of the crime under investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence for 1 (1999) 7 SCC 685 2 (2012) 6 SCC 760 Page 42 of 96 which the police officer is investigating into. A property not suspected of commission of the offence which is being investigated into by the police officer cannot be seized. Under Section 102 of the Code, the police officer can seize such property which is covered by Section 102 (1) and no other. He would further submit that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. State of Gujarat3, has also taken the same view.
42. He would further submit that the entire action of the police authorities in freezing and seizure of the petitioners' bank account is without jurisdiction, illegal and is in complete violation of the provisions of law and he would further pray that Writ Petition (Cr.) be kindly allowed.
WPCR No. 1096 of 201943. The petitioner who was working at the relevant time as Sub-
Registrar, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar has filed the instant writ petition assailing the enquiry report dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P/1) submitted by the Collector as well as the subsequent FIR No. 409/2019 dated 04.08.2019 (Annexure P/2) registered against him at Police Station- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.). The petitioner has taken the same stand which has already been taken by the other petitioners in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 and other writ petitions, therefore, they are not being repeated by this Court.
44. In addition to that, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as Sub- Registrar at the relevant point of time, regarding value of land acquired for Rail Line Special Rail Project, Rowghat-Jagdalpur regarding Village- Palli. The petitioner after perusing the relevant records, has sent information regarding market value of subject lands as per prevailing guidelines. Thereafter, vide letter dated 27.01.2018, 3 (2018) 2 SCC 372 Page 43 of 96 the Joint Director has directed the petitioner to submit market value of acquired land of Village- Palli as per Khasra records. Vide letter dated 30.01.2018, the petitioner submitted the market value of acquired land of Village- Palli. On the allegation of furnishing incorrect market value of acquired land, vide order dated 30.07.2019, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Collector, Bastar. On the same allegations, vide order dated 30.07.2019, the Collector, Bastar has directed for registration of FIR against the accused persons including present petitioner.
45. The petitioner preferred an appeal agaist the suspension order before the Commissioner, Bastar Division and vide its letter dated 07.10.2020, the petitioner's suspension was revoked. It has been further contended that in pursuance of the same allegation, charge-sheet has been issued on 06.09.2019 and vide order dated 04.01.2021, the Collector, Bastar has closed the enquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner. On the same facts, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner, therefore, the FIR is also liable to be quashed. It has been further submitted that as per the guidelines for the year 2017-18 the market value of the land situated at Ward No. 37, Lok Manya Tilak Ward falls within area of Municipal Corporation and market value of the said area is fixed as Rs. 11,300/- sq. Mtr. as per the prevailing guidelines as such, no fraud has been committed by him.
46. The State has filed their return reiterating the same stand taken by them in other writ petitions and would submit that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed.
47. Respondent No. 2/Union of India has also filed their return reiterating the same stand, which they have taken in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 and other writ petitions.
Page 44 of 96 WPCR No. 751 of 201948. The petitioner has reiterated the stands already taken by them in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 and would submit that the petitioner being owner of the land has rightly been granted compensation and would also submit that the petitioner after developing the land has accorded permission from Collector, Bastar at Jagdalpur vide its order dated 19.03.2009 to sell out the plot on the basis of colonizer license and permission granted by the Municipal Corporation for development of plots. It has been further contended that the said permission was recalled vide its order dated 30.01.2012. The petitioner has challenged the said award/order before this Court in WP (227) No. 238/2012. The said writ petition was partly allowed by this Court.
49. The petitioner has reiterated the stand taken in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 and would additionally submit that the Collector has conducted enquiry without considering the important fact that the subjected land was purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 20.02.2008 and thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer in Revenue Case No. 119/A-2/2007-08 had granted permission for diversion of use of said land vide order dated 04.08.2008, thereafter, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur vide order dated 21.04.2011 has granted permission to develop the colony over the said plot.
50. The petitioner after granting permission from Collector vide order dated 19.03.2009 to sell out the plot on the basis of having colonizer license and permission granted by Municipal Corporation for development of plot. However, the said permission was recalled and set aside by learned Commissioner vide order dated 30.01.2012. The petitioner had challenged the said order before this Hon'ble Court in WP (227) No. 238/2012 and the same was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court maintaining the order of diversion of land dated 04.08.2008. The Page 45 of 96 consequence of dismissal of said writ petition was that the subjected land was back to the hands of the petitioner as per the order dated 07.01.2015 passed by the Collector which was passed in Revenue Case No. 37/A-21/2011-2012. In view of these proceedings, it is apparently clear that order of diversion of use of land was maintained by the order of this Court, sold to the aboriginal tribes were found to be illegal meaning thereby the plotting over the land was maintained. All these factual aspects have been overlooked by the Collector. The competent authority is absolutely justified in considering the land to be a diverted land. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
"(1) To quash the enquiry report dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P/1).
(2) To quash the FIR dated 04.08.2019 (Annexure P/2) to the extent of the petitioner registered under Crime No. 409/2019 by the Police Station- Jagdalpur (C.G.) (3) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court considers proper, may kindly be awarded."
51. The State has filed its return reiterating the stand already taken in WPCR No. 1031/2019, therefore, the same is not repeated by this Court and would submit that the grounds raised in this petition challenging the impugned enquiry report and subsequent registration of FIR, is completely unsustainable, therefore, no case is made out for interference by this Court and the instant petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
52. Respondent No. 2/Union of India has filed a detailed return on 09.03.2020 reiterating the stand which they have already taken in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019, therefore, the same is not being repeated by this Court and would submit that contention of the petitioner that the entire enquiry report submitted by the Collector is based on perversity without opportunity of hearing in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be rejected by Page 46 of 96 this Court. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) is also liable to be rejected by this Court.
WPCR No. 828 of 201953. The petitioner No. 1/ Suresh B. Matali is Additional General Manager (Civil) & petitioner No. 2/ A.V.R. Murty is Joint General Manager against whom allegation in the complaint, enquiry report as well as in the FIR has been levelled, have filed the instant writ petition reiterating the stand already taken by other petitioners in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 and other petitioners. It has been further contended that Collector, Bastar at Jagdalpur was not competent and without hearing the parties, enquiry report has been submitted and on the basis of enquiry report, FIR has been registered. It has been further contended that on the above factual matrix, the enquiry report dated 30.07.2019 and the FIR No. 409/2019 dated 04.08.2019 registered against the petitioners may kindly be quashed.
54. The petitioner has also filed I.A. No. 02/2019 for taking additional document on record contending that the petitioners are filing copy of design submitted long back in September, 2015 with title "Design of the preferred alignment within the DTM Corridor including submission of the possible alternatives for the track alignments in connection with construction of new line between Jadgalpur-Kondagaon-Rowghat on South East Central Railway in the State of Chhattisgarh, India" which also rules out the allegation of any manipulation with ulterior motives by the petitioners of their own. These documents will help in better analysis of the facts and proper and judicious adjudication of the matter in the dispute. Hence, it may kindly be taken on record. The said document is taken on record while finally deciding the case and this Court will deal with this aspect of the matter at the appropriate stage while passing of the order.
Page 47 of 9655. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the document would suggest that alignment done by him is required for proper movement and for proper construction of new line, as such, they have not committed any illegality in changing the alignment and this alignment has been changed without any ulterior motive grating benefit to any accused and in fact it has been done in the interest of Railway.
56. Respondent No. 2/Union of India has also filed their return reiterating the same stand already taken by them in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 and other writ petitions, therefore, the same are not being repeated by this Court.
57. Learned State counsel would submit that this is defence of the petitioners, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while considering the case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage.
WPCR No. 1037 of 201958. The petitioner is a former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officer and at the relevant time, he was working as Additional Collector, Bastar at Jagdalpur and also appointed as Competent Authority by Central Government as per Section 2 (7A) of Railway Act, 1989 for the purpose of land acquisition proceedings in pursuance to which the petitioner had discharged the responsibility on behalf of respondent No. 3 in the State. It is pivotal to note that the petitioner has undertaken all the land acquisition proceedings in consonance of the Railway Act, 1989 and passed the award dated 12.02.2018 for 21 villages for the said project.
59. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Bali Nagwanshi was awarded compensation of Rs. 70.62 Cr. for acquisition of land admeasuring 2.69 Hectare in Khasra No. 123/1 & 123/2 and Mrs. Neelima was awarded a compensation of Rs. 20.80 Cr. for acquisition of land admeasuring 1.040 Page 48 of 96 Hectare in Khasra No. 125/1 to 125/29, 125/31, 125/33 to 125/37. It has been further contended that the aforesaid land was diverted land for commercial and housing purpose within the urban area due to which their land valuation was higher than other lands as per the State Government land valuation guidelines.
60. He would further submit that notification dated 02.07.2014 issued as per Section 29 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 had covered the lands of both the aforesaid land owners under Ward No. 37 i.e. Lok Manya Tilak Ward, wherein the lands were on the main road and the Municipal Corporation, Jadgalpur had given colonizer registration license to both the land owners and their lands have duly been diverted for the purpose of developing a housing project over their respective acquired lands earlier.
61. He would further submit that the petitioner has passed the award considering this aspect of the matter and the Collector without considering this aspect of the matter has recorded the perverse finding and submitted his report on 30.07.2019 on the basis of which, FIR No. 409/2019 has been registered against the petitioner on 04.08.2019 at Police Station- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar for committing offence punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC without conducting any preliminary investigation in violation of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & others4.
62. He would further submit that the respondents and any other concerned body had not taken a single objection from the inception of the land acquisition proceedings till the passing of the award dated 12.02.2018 and even thereafter till the deposition of the compensation amount and disbursement of the same, as such the respondents are estopped from raising plea 4 (2014) 2 SCC 1 Page 49 of 96 with regard to assessment of compensation by him as per Doctrine of Waiver and Estoppal.
63. The State has filed their return on behalf of respondent No. 1, 2 & 4 reiterating the same stand already taken in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 and other writ petitions and would submit that the Collector, Bastar at Jagdalpur has rightly conducted the enquiry and on the basis of enquiry report, the FIR has rightly been registered against the petitioner. He would further submit that no case is made out by the petitioner for interference of this Court, therefore, the instant writ petition may kindly be dismissed.
64. Respondent No. 4/Union of India has also filed their return reiterating the same stand taken by them in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 and other writ petition, therefore, the same are not being repeating by this Court.
65. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records of the Competent Authority/ Additional Collector as well as the Commissioner/ Arbitrator with utmost satisfaction.
66. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondents, it is expedient for this Court to extract the relevant provisions of the Railways Act and RPL Act, 2013, which are as under:-
"2 (7A) of the Railway Act, 1989- "competent authority" means any person authorised by the Central Government, by notification, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification;
20A of the Railway Act, 1989- Power to acquire land, etc. -- (1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for execution of a special railway project, it may, by notification, declare its intention to acquire such land.
(2) Every notification under sub-section (1), shall give a brief description of the land and of the special railway project for which the land is intended to be acquired.Page 50 of 96
(3) The State Government or the Union territory, as the case may be, shall for the purposes of this section, provide the details of the land records to the competent authority, whenever required. (4) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which shall be in a vernacular language.
20D Hearing of objections, etc. --
(1) Any person interested in the land may, within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 20A, object to the acquisition of land for the purpose mentioned in that sub-section.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1), shall be made to the competent authority in writing, and shall set out the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either allow or disallow the objections.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-
section, "legal practitioner" has the same meaning as in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961). (3) Any order made by the competent authority under sub-section (2) shall be final. ] 20E Declaration of acquisition. -- (1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 20D has been made to the competent authority within the period specified therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the objections under sub- section (2) of that section, the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central Government shall declare, by notification, that the land should be acquired for the purpose mentioned in sub-
section (1) of section 20A.
(2) On the publication of the declaration under sub- section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. (3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published under sub-section (1) of section 20A for its acquisition, but no declaration under sub-section (1) of this section has been published Page 51 of 96 within a period of one year from the date of publication of that notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect:
Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 20A is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.
(4) A declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section (1) shall not be called in question in any court or by any other authority.
20F Determination of amount payable at compensation. -- (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.
(2) The competent authority shall make an award under this section within a period of one year from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that the competent authority may, after the expiry of the period of limitation, if he is satisfied that the delay has been caused due to unavoidable circumstances, and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, he may make the award within an extended period of six months:
Provided further that where an award is made within the extended period, the entitled person shall, in the interest of justice, be paid an additional compensation for the delay in making of the award, every month for the period so extended, at the rate of not less than five per cent. of the value of the award, for each month of such delay.
(3) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition, an amount calculated at ten per cent. of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (4) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3), as the case may be, the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, Page 52 of 96 one of which shall be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.
(5) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 20D, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land.
(6) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or as the case may be sub-section (3) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed.
(7) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.
(8) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount of compensation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (6), as the case may be, shall take into consideration--
(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 20A;
(b) the damage, if any sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;
(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change. (9) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the competent authority or the arbitrator, as the case may be, shall in every case award a sum of sixty per centum on such market-
value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
20-I Power to take possession. --
Page 53 of 96(1) Where any land has vested in the Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 20E, and the amount determined by the competent authority under section 20F with respect to such land has been deposited under sub-section (1) of section 20H with the competent authority by the Central Government, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, direct the owner as well as any other person who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority or any person duly authorised by it in this behalf within a period of sixty days of the service of the notice.
(2) If any person refuses or fails to comply with any direction made under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall apply--
(a) in case of any land situated in any area falling within the metropolitan area, to the Commissioner of Police;
(b) in case of any land situated in any area other than the area referred to in clause (a), to the Collector of a district, and such Commissioner or Collector, as the case may be, shall enforce the surrender of the land, to the competent authority or to the person duly authorised by it.
Section 26 of the Act, 2013- Determination of market value of land by Collector.- (1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:--
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher: Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.
Explanation 1.--The average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village Page 54 of 96 or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2.--For determining the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3.--While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken into consideration. Explanation 4.--While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposes of calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) cannot be determined for the reason that--
(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available for the immediately preceding three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority, the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:
Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case shall Page 55 of 96 exceed twenty-five per cent, of the value so calculated under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its shares, the value of which is deductible in the value of the land calculated under sub-section (1): Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area:
Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of an educational institution established and administered by a religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice."
67. In view of the above stated factual matrix, following points required to be determined by this Court are :-
(1) Whether the Collector is competent to conduct enquiry with regard to the project carried out by the Central Government.
(2) Whether the facts and grounds raised by the petitioners can be examined by this Court at this stage to quash the FIR.
(3) If the charge-sheet and the suspension order has already been revoked, then what is the effect with regard to criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in WPCR No. 1096 of 2019.
(4) Whether the Station House Officer was justified in issuing the notice dated 05.08.2019 for freezing the bank account.
68. The Bastar Railway Private Limited has filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 2712, 2713-2714, 2715-2716 & 2717- 2718 of 2020, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has stayed the disbursement of the amount awarded by the Competent Page 56 of 96 Authority and the interim order of 'no coercive steps' passed by this Court on 08.06.2020 was made continued till disposal of the writ petitions pending before this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court has directed this Court to dispose of the writ petition within two months from the date of passing of the order.
69. In compliance of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the matter was listed before this Court on 17.09.2021 and thereafter, the matter was listed on 07.10.2021 and the matter was heard in part. Again, it was listed before this Court on 29.10.2021 and thereafter on 16.11.2021. On 16.11.2021, the matter was finally heard and orders were reserved.
Point No. 1 & 270. From the above stated facts, it is apparent that the petitioner's main limb of argument for quashing of the enquiry report submitted by the Collector is that the Collector is not competent authority to conduct the above enquiry in the project run by the Central Government.
71. To substantiate the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the whole acquisition proceeding in respect of the land acquired by Special Railway Project is governed by Chapter 4A of the Railway Act, 1989, which is a complete code for land acquisition projects. He would submit that Section 20A provides for declaration of intention of the Central Government to acquire land, Section 20B provides for any person authorized by the Competent Authority and inspect and survey and make measurement of the land intent to acquire the land for Railway project, Section 20C provides for evaluation of damages caused the land, Section 20D provides for hearing and disposing of objections of the person interested in the land which is to be acquired, Section 20E provides for notification of the declaration that the land should be acquired where no objections to the acquisition are filed within stipulated time or objection is disallowed by the competent authority and the land Page 57 of 96 will be vested upon such notification free of all encumbrances, Section 20F provides competent authority to deliver an award determining the compensation to be paid to each of the person whose land is to be acquired. Section 20G provides for methodology to be adopted by the competent authority for determination of the market value. He would submit that the scheme of Chapter 4A of the Railways Act does not leave any room for the State Government to play any role in the process of acquisition of land under the Railways Act. He would further submit that the Railways Act is clearly referable to Entry No. 22 of list 1 read with entry No. 22 acquisition and requisition of property in list 7 of the Constitution. Thus, the State has no role to play, therefore, the proceeding initiated by the Collector is without any jurisdiction. He would refer to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Dipak Babaria & another Vs. State of Gujarat & others5, wherein it has been held as under:-
"72. In our view, considering the scheme of the act, the process of industrialization must take place in accordance therewith. As stated earlier if the law requires a particular thing should be done in a particular manner it must be done in that way and none other. The State cannot ignore the policy intent and the procedure contemplated by the statute. In the instant case, the State could have acquired the land, and then either by auction or by considering the merit of the proposal of respondent No.5 allotted it to respondent No.5. Assuming that the application of the Respondent No 5 was for a bona-fide purpose, the same had to be examined by the industrial commissioner, to begin with, and thereafter it should have gone to the collector. After the property vests in the Government, even if there were other bidders to the property, the collector could have considered the merits and the bona- fides of the application of Respondent No. 5, and nothing would have prevented him from following the course which is permissible under the law. It is not merely the end but the means which are of 5 (2014) 3 SCC 502 Page 58 of 96 equal importance, particularly if they are enshrined in the legislative scheme. The minimum that was required was an enquiry at the level of the Collector who is the statutory authority. Dictating him to act in a particular manner on the assumption by the Minister that it is in the interest of the industrial development would lead to a breach of the mandate of the statute framed by the legislature. The Ministers are not expected to act in this manner and therefore, this particular route through the corridors of the Ministry, contrary to the statute, cannot be approved. The present case is clearly one of dereliction of his duties by the Collector and dictation by the Minister, showing nothing but arrogance of power."
72. To meet this submission, learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 6- Bastar Railway Pvt. Ltd. would submit that as per memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Government of Chhattisgarh, represented by Secretary Commerce and Industries, M/s NMDC Limited, a 'Navratna' Public Sector Undertaking of Govt. of India under the administrative control of Ministry of Steel, Steel Authority of India Limited, a 'Maharatna' Public Sector Undertaking of Govt. of India under the administrative control of Ministry of Steel & IRCON International Limited, the cost of the project was to be shared by MoR (57%), NMDC (10%), SAIL (21%) & Govt. of Chhattisgarh (12%). Clause 12 of the MoU provides that Government of Chhattisgarh shall provide the requisite statutory support wherever required to the JVC to ensure expeditious completion and commissioning of the project. From the above stated clause, it is quite vivid that the Government of Chhattisgarh has to conclude the process of land acquisition process and there is a report regarding malafide, arbitrariness and prima facie fraudulent practice have been adopted in the land acquisition process, the Collector being nominee of the State Government is competent enough to conduct enquiry and from the enquiry report dated 30.07.2019, it is clearly prima facie established that there is fraud and collusion of the revenue authority, which has exaggerated the quantum of Page 59 of 96 compensation, therefore, the enquiry conducted on the direction of the Collector cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
73. Learned Senior counsel for Bastar Railway Pvt. Ltd. would submit that the Collector, Bastar has proposed the Additional Collector, Bastar to be appointed as Competent Authority/ Land Acquisition Officer for conducting the land acquisition proceedings, therefore, the Government of India has notified the Additional Collector, Bastar as Competent Authority. Since the subordinate officer of the Collector has been appointed as Competent Authority on the recommendation of the Collector, the Collector will always have an inherent supervisory role over the conduct, acts and omissions of its subordinate i.e. the Additional Collector.
74. He would further submit that the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act, 2013"), the Collector has been authorized to determine the market value of the land to be acquired for determining the amount of compensation and awarding of solatium. It is also submitted that under the removal of Difficulties of Order, 2015 issued under the provisions of the Act, 2013 relating to determination of compensation in accordance with the First, Second and Third Schedule have been made applicable to all the land acquisition cases specified in the Fourth Schedule of the Act, 2013 and the Fourth Schedule of the Act, 2013 includes the Railways Act, 1989.
75. He would further submit that the Collector has the jurisdiction and power to enquire into the allegations of corruption, fraud in the present land acquisition because under the MoU the State Government is to facilitate the land acquisition. Moreover, the State has 10% stake in the Joint Venture Company (JVC)/BRPL, therefore, the role, power and jurisdiction of the Collector cannot be curtailed under any circumstances. Even otherwise, the Page 60 of 96 Collector upon receiving the information from any sources whatsoever about discrepancies in the land acquisition proceedings, was well within his authority to request his subordinate officer to make a complaint to the police informing them about the commission of a cognizable offence for registration of FIR against the accused persons. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra) at paragraph 1, 119, 120, has held that the Police was under obligation to register FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced below:-
"if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence without a preliminary enquiry, therefore, the contention made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the Collector is not competent authority to conduct the enquiry in the matter of Railway project, cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected."
76. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra) at paragraph 1, 119, 120, has held as under:-
1. The important issue which arises for consideration in the referred matter is whether "a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') or the police officer has the power to conduct a "preliminary inquiry" in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?"
119. Therefore, in view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to Page 61 of 96 register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1. Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
Page 62 of 96
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal
delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
77. Learned Senior counsel BRPL would submit that the petitioner was awarded 25% extra compensation for his commercial land, which is in contravention of Rule 9 of guidelines for the year 2017-18. It has been further contended that the competent authority while determining compensation, petitioners' two different Khasra Nos. 123/1 & 132/2 have been treated separately and exaggerated compensation has been awarded, which is also in contravention of guidelines for the year 2017-18. No other land of owners except Smt. Neelima Belsaria were calculated separately. Out of 7 Khasra in Village- Palli, 5 were considered in Municipal Corporation area while other 2 were considered as rural in adjoining Village- Ghatpadmur. The lands adjoining to the petitioners' lands were also considered as rural and awarded compensation according to the guidelines for the year 2017-18 applying prescribed per hectare rate, as such, Page 63 of 96 there are anomalies in calculating the compensation.
78. Learned Senior counsel for BRPL would further submit that vide notification dated 12.07.2004, Gram Panchayats have been formed under Section 129(B)(1) of Chhattisgarh Panchayati Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and as per Sr. No. 21 of the said notification, Village- Kumravand and the Village- Palli have been notified in the Gram Panchayat. Later on vide notification dated 22.07.2014, the said Gram Panchayat Kumravand has been formed by including Village- Kumravand and Village- Palli. From the above mentioned notifications, it is apparent that the Village- Palli has always been a rural area and does not come within the limit of Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur. However, with sheer motive to provide unlawful benefit to the beneficiaries of land acquisition especially the petitioner Bali Nagwanshi and Smt. Neelima, 5 Khatas of Village- Palli have been shown as urban area and huge compensation has been illegally paid to the beneficiaries. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land belonging to Bali Nagwanshi and Smt. Neelima Belsaria falls within the ambit of urban area, as such, there are disputed facts and various notifications have been preferred, which notifications are applicable and which are not applicable, is a disputed facts, which can be determined during trial, therefore, this Court cannot consider these notifications at this stage.
79. Further contention of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the land belonging to the petitioners is situated at urban area and the compensation has rightly been awarded to them, therefore, no case of fraud is made out against the petitioners and the FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Collector, Bastar report is based upon no evidence or surmises, is his defence, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage. It is the defence of the petitioners, which this Court cannot Page 64 of 96 examine at the time of examining the FIR.
80. The thread bearing analysis can be done only by trial Court where the trial is going on, therefore, the defence taken by the petitioners cannot be examined by this Court while hearing writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India as held Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh vs State of U.P. & others 6 wherein it has been held as under:-
"9.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 of IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the Learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 of IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/Complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge- sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by 6 (2020) SCC Online 580 Page 65 of 96 this Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel (Supra) in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the Investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an Appellate Court. It is further observed and held that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the Investigating Authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 9.2 In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Supra) after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra), it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Arvind Khanna (Supra), Managipet (Supra) and in the case of XYZ (Supra), referred to hereinabove.
9.3 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint Page 66 of 96 notarized affidavit of Mamta Gupta - Accused No.2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused no.2 - Ms. Mamta Gupta, Rs.25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27.10.2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs.25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs.25 lakhs to Ms. Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarized affidavit of the same date i.e., 27.10.2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs.35 lakhs out of which Rs.25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused No.2. Whether Rs.25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs.25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarized affidavit dated 27.10.2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs.25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs.10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation."
81. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in very recent judgment in case of State of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanti7, has held as under:-
"9. While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has not at all adverted to itself the aforesaid aspects and has embarked upon an enquiry as to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence collected during the investigation as if the High Court was conducting the mini trial. Therefore, as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents herein original accused Nos. 4, 5 and 3 - Smt. Pratima Mohanty, Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar Samal is unsustainable, both, in law and/or facts and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above present appeals succeed. Impugned 7 Criminal Appeal Nos. 1455-1456/2021 (decided on 11th December, 2021) Page 67 of 96 common judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 04.09.2019 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3177 of 2017 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4804 of 2015 are hereby quashed and set aside in so far as quashing the criminal proceedings against original Accused Nos.4, 5 & 3 is concerned.
Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 3 to face trial along with other co-accused.
Present Appeals are accordingly allowed."
82. The allegations made in the FIR regarding fraud and collusion, are to be ascertained by the trial Court at the time of recording evidence, therefore, this Court cannot look into this aspect of the matter at this stage while hearing the petition for quashing the FIR registered against the petitioners.
83. The contention of the petitioner is that no opportunity has been granted to them before conduction of enquiry by the team constituted by the Collector. This is a fact finding enquiry and the petitioner may get the full opportunity while cross-examining the witnesses or evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial of the case, therefore, the submission that the accused should have been granted opportunity of hearing while conducting enquiry is not a ground to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
84. During course of hearing, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has himself relied upon the guidelines and tried to make out the case that the compensation has been granted on the basis of guidelines. Again, it has to be ascertained by the trial Court at the time of trial of the case whether the guidelines and the Map are rightly followed or not, therefore, this Court while prayer for quashing of the FIR cannot look into this aspect of the matter as this Court cannot conduct roving and moving enquiry to ascertain the facts whether the offence has been committed or not. This can be very well ascertained by the trial Court while conducting thread bearing appreciation of evidence, material collected and produced for the trial.
Page 68 of 9685. The whole facts are moving around the facts that the lands belonging to the petitioner are within the urban area, which has to be ascertained after recording of the evidence, then only it can be find out whether the accused has committed any offence or not.
86. From bare perusal of the FIR, it is evident that certain allegations have been levelled and the same has to be ascertained during trial, therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that compensation has been determined by the Competent Authoty is in accordance with law and no case of fraud as alleged in the FIR, is made out, can be ascertained by the trial court only, which cannot be looked into by this Court at this juncture.
87. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the competent authority has determined the market value of the land as per Section 26 of the Act, 2013. As per Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, certain procedures have to be followed for determination of market value by the Collector, which is as under:-
"26. Determination of market value of land by Collector." - (1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:--
(a) the minimum land value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of saledeeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.
Explanation 1- The average sale price referred to in Page 69 of 96 clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2- For determining the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3- While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district shall not be taken into consideration. Explanation 4- While determining the market value under this section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be discounted for the purposes of calculating market value."
88. Section 26 provides that how the market value has to be determined and whether such procedure has been followed or not, is again the question of facts, which can be determined by the trial Court while examining the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR, as such, this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners as this juncture, cannot be looked into by this Court.
89. The Competent Authority has simply applied the market value specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 for registration of sale deed without adopting other modes of the determination of market value of land as there was dispute with regard to the fact whether Village- Palli falls within urban area or rural area, which shows that the Competent Authority has not discharged its official duties in determination of the market value of the land and prima facie caused huge financial loss to public exchequer.
90. This Court has also called for the record of the land acquisition proceeding, which nowhere reflects how the Competent Page 70 of 96 Authority has reached to a conclusion for grant of such huge amount of compensation to the land owners. The record would show that the Competent Authority has only referred to the guidelines for the year 2017-18, but nowhere mentioned that which provision of the guidelines has been considered and which part of the guidelines has been considered and the competent authority has not given any finding whether Village- Palli falls within urban area or rural area.
91. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to various notifications which are prior to the land acquisition proceedings, therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the competent authority to examine the notifications to give specific findings whether the land belongs to urban area or not. This shows prima facie case as alleged in the FIR, is made out. Though all the facts have to be determined while recording evidence examined before the trial court, therefore, this Court at this juncture, cannot consider its authenticity and correctness and the same can very well be examined by the trial Court at the time of recording of evidence.
92. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector's report himself be set aside as the same has been prepared in violation of principal of natural justice without giving opportunity to the accused persons, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Lal Krishna Advani & others8, wherein it has been held at paragraph 6 as under:-
"6. The High Court, while referring to a decision Reported in State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. Vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad & Anr. AIR 1967 SC p. 122, observed that an authority who takes a decision, which may have civil consequences and affects right of a person, the principle of natural justice would at once come into play. Reputation of an individual is an important part of one's life. 8 (2003) 8 SCC 361 Page 71 of 96 The High Court then quoted a passage from a decision of this Court reported in Smt.Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh Vs. Committee of Inquiry & Anr. [AIR 1989 SC 714], which passage (SCC p. 515, para 25) contains the observations from an American decision in D.F. Marion V. Minnie Davis, [55 American LR 171], reads as follows :
"The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."
Some decisions, to which our attention has been drawn by Shri Harish N.Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, may be referred. [1983 (1) SCC 124], Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & Ors., wherein it was observed that right to reputation is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. He has also referred to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1965 (ICCPR), recognizing right to have opinions and the right of freedom of expression subject to the right of reputation of others. The Covenant provides :
"1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary;
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals."
It is thus amply clear that one is entitled to have and preserve, one's reputation and one also has a Page 72 of 96 right to protect it. In case any authority, in discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, traverses into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter. In such circumstances right of an individual to have the safeguard of principles of natural justice before being adversely commented upon by a Commission of Inquiry is statutorily recognised and violation of the same will have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review. A reference may be made to [1984] A.C. 808, Peter Thomas Mahon Vs Air New Zealand Ltd."
93. Learned counsel for the Bastar Railway Pvt. Ltd. and State would submit that report is subjected to cross-examination before the trial Court wherein, the authenticity and correctness of the report can be examined, as such, it is not required for the Collector to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. From the entire facts, material placed before this Court, this Court is of the view that the allegation of fraud has been levelled against the petitioners and criminal law has set in motion by registration of FIR and the petitioners have ample opportunities during the trial to rebut the correctness and authenticity of the report prepared by the Collector, therefore, the submission that the enquiry report is liable to be quashed on the count of non- compliance of principle of natural justice, the same is liable to be rejected by this Court at this juncture. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners can very well cross-examine author of the report and the materials which have been taken into consideration while preparing the report, therefore, the report cannot be quashed by this Court at this juncture. So far as judgment cited by learned Senior counsel is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
94. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Collector has no power to direct registration of an FIR after conducting an enquiry in area where he has no administrative jurisdiction and has referred to the judgment rendered by Page 73 of 96 Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh & another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others 9, wherein it has been held as under:-
"7. It is therefore apparent that in the scheme of the Code, an Executive Magistrate has no role to play in directing the police to register an F.I.R. on basis of a private complaint lodged before him. If a complaint is lodged before the Executive Magistrate regarding an issue over which he has administrative jurisdiction, and the Magistrate proceeds to hold an administrative inquiry, it may be possible for him to lodge an F.I.R. himself in the matter. In such a case, entirely different considerations would arise. A reading of the F.I.R. reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R. on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate does not exercise powers under Section 156 (3) of the Code. The very institution of the F.I.R. in the manner done is contrary to the law and without jurisdiction."
95. Since this Court in foregoing paragraph has already recorded finding that the Government of Chhattisgarh is at stake in this project though carried out by a Joint Venture Company, therefore, Collector being the head of District Administration has jurisdiction and power for directing the Police to register the FIR. The judgment referred to by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
96. From the above discussion and considering the law on the subject, it is held that the petitioners have raised various defence for quashing of the FIR, which has been registered on the basis of the report submitted by the Collector on 30.07.2019.
97. In view of the above, Point No. 1 is decided against the petitioner that the Collector is Competent to conduct the enquiry with regard to the project carried out by the Central Government and Point No. 2 is also decided against the petitioners that the facts and grounds raised by them cannot be examined by this Court at this stage to quash the FIR.
9 (2019) 2 SCC 344 Page 74 of 96 Point No. 3
98. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPCR No. 1096 of 2019 would submit that since charge-sheet and subsequent department enquiry has been dropped, therefore, the criminal proceedings, registration of FIR on the set of allegation is liable to be quashed by this Court. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be considered as in the departmental proceedings whether the material which have been collected during the investigation have been brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority are not clear and this Court cannot lost sight of the fact that the petitioner has informed the Competent Authority with regard to the market value of the land situated at Ward No. 37, Lok Manya Tilak Ward and this ward is situated within the Municipal limit whereas, the whole dispute moves around with regard to location of the ward whether the land situated at Palli Naka falls within urban area or rural area, therefore, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to give the correct position. The fact whether the petitioner has given correct position or not with regard to the land is matter of the enquiry and investigation, therefore, the FIR at this stage cannot be quashed by this Court.
99. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State Through SPE & CBI, Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Krishna Mohan & another 10, has examined similar issue raised by the petitioner if since departmental enquiry has been closed, the criminal proceedings cannot be continued or not and has held as under:-
"31. Furthermore, the enquiry report has not been brought on record. The factum of exoneration of respondent No.2 in the departmental proceedings was raised by way of defence. It was, therefore, obligatory on his part to bring on record all the relevant documents, namely, the charge-sheet, the other materials brought on record by the department and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 10 (2007) 14 SCC 667 Page 75 of 96 If the statement of the Investigating Officer (PW-
23) is to be accepted and there is absolutely no reason as to why it should not be; there was no occasion for the enquiry officer to have the benefit of the depositions of the purported loanees, namely, PW-21 and PW-22, the opinion of the fingerprint expert and other material brought on record by the prosecution which clearly established the involvement of the respondents herein.
32. Mr. Nageshwar Rao relied upon a decision of this Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar [(1996) 9 SCC 1]. The fact situation obtaining therein was absolutely different. In that case, in the vigilance report, the delinquent officer was shown to be innocent. It was at that juncture, an application for quashing of the proceedings was filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335], holding :
"23. Even though all these facts including the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission were brought to the notice of the High Court, unfortunately, the High Court took a view that the issues raised had to be gone into in the final proceedings and the Report of the Central Vigilance Commission, exonerating the appellant of the same charge in departmental proceedings would not conclude the criminal case against the appellant. We have already held that for the reasons given, on the peculiar facts of this case, the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant cannot be pursued." (Underlining is ours for emphasis)
33. The said decision was, therefore, rendered on the facts obtaining therein and cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition that exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would lead to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial.
34. In Superintendent of Police (CBI) v. Deepak Chowdhary & Ors. [(1995) 6 SCC 225], this Court while considering a matter of sanction, vis-a- vis, exoneration in a departmental proceedings, held :
"5. We find force in the contention. The grant of sanction is only an administrative Page 76 of 96 function, though it is true that the accused may be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law. What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. Prima facie, the authority is required to reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute the offence and then either grant or refuse to grant sanction. The grant of sanction, therefore, being administrative act the need to provide an opportunity of hearing to the accused before according sanction does not arise. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in holding that the order of sanction is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice."
35. In a case of this nature where departmental proceeding was initiated only as against respondent No.2, the enquiry officer did not have the benefit to consider all the materials which could be brought on record by the Department in the light of the investigation made by a specialized investigating agency, the evidence of experts and deposition of witnesses to show that forgery of document has been committed by forging thumb impression and handwriting, we are of the opinion that exoneration of respondent No.2 in the departmental proceedings cannot lead to the conclusion that he was not guilty of commission of the offences wherefor he was charged."
100. From the above stated legal position and considering the factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the view that even though the departmental enquiry has been closed, the FIR cannot be closed on this count alone, as such, Point No. 3 decided against the petitioner.
Point No. 4101. The learned counsel for the petitioner in WPCR No. 979 of 2019 would submit that the police officer cannot seize the bank account exercising its power under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and has referred the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Page 77 of 96 Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad (Supra). The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner itself decided that the bank account is a property within the ambit of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and the police officer can very well seize the bank account if the bank account found to be suspicion of commission of any offence then a police officer can very well seize the bank account. In the case on hand, the amount of compensation which according to the prosecution, has been illegally and exorbitant amount has been awarded by committing fraud and this amount is kept in the bank account of the petitioner which has been mentioned in the present writ petition. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad (Supra) has held as under:-
"17. The sweep and applicability of Section 102 of the Code is no more res integra. That question has been directly considered and answered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy [(1997) 7 SCC 685]. The Court examined the question whether the police officer investigating any offence can issue prohibitory orders in respect of bank accounts in exercise of power under Section 102 of the Code. The High Court, in that case, after analysing the provisions of Section 102 of the Code had opined that bank account of the accused or of any relation of the accused cannot be held to be 4 (1999) 7 SCC 685 "property" within the meaning of Section 102 of the Code. Therefore, the Investigating Officer will have no power to seize bank accounts or to issue any prohibitory order prohibiting the operation of the bank account. This Court noted that there were conflicting decisions of different High Courts on this aspect and as the question was seminal, it chose to answer the same. In para 6, this Court noted thus: (SCC p. 691) "6. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 102 indicates that the Police Officer has the power to seize any property which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence. The legislature having used the expression "any property" and "any offence" have made Page 78 of 96 the applicability of the provisions wide enough to cover offences created under any Act. But the two preconditions for applicability of Section 102(1) are that it must be „property‟ and secondly, in respect of the said property there must have been suspicion of commission of any offence. In this view of the matter the two further questions that arise for consideration are whether the bank account of an accused or of his relation can be said to be „property‟ within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. and secondly, whether circumstances exist, creating suspicion of commission of any offence in relation to the same."
18. After analysing the decisions of different High Courts, this Court in paragraph 12, expounded the legal position thus:
"12. Having considered the divergent views taken by different High Courts with regard to the power of seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the bank account can be held to be „property‟ within the meaning of the said Section 102(1), we see no justification to give any narrow interpretation to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is well known that corruption in public offices has become so rampant that it has become difficult to cope up with the same. Then again the time consumed by the Courts in concluding the trials is another factor which should be borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the underlying object engrafted therein, inasmuch as if there can be no order of seizure of the bank account of the accused then the entire money deposited in a bank which is ultimately held in the trial to be the outcome of the illegal gratification, could be withdrawn by the accused and the Courts would be powerless to get the said money which has any direct link with the commission of the offence committed by the accused as a public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to take the view that the bank account of the accused or any of Page 79 of 96 his relations is "property" within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into........... In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Bombay committed error in holding that the police officer could not have seized the bank account or could not have issued any direction to the bank officer, prohibiting the account of the accused from being operated upon."
After this decision, there is no room to countenance the challenge to the action of seizure of bank account of any person which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence."
102. From the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that in such circumstances, the police officer can very well seize the bank account which is a property as per Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the Point No. 4 decides against the petitioner.
103. This defence cannot be considered by this Court while quashing of the FIR, therefore, the present WPCR No. 674 of 2019, 979 of 2019, 1037 of 2019, 751 of 2019, 828 of 2019, 1031 of 2019 & 1096 of 2019 are liable to be and are hereby disposed of with direction mentioned in subsequent paragraph of this order.
WPC No. 3355 of 2019104. The petitioner/ Bastar Railway Private Limited (BRPL) has filed the present Writ Petition (C) assailing the award dated 12.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Competent Authority/ Additional Collector, Bastar and also prayed for issuance of direction for seizure of the accounts of the beneficiaries respondents No. 6 to 10 as they have been illegally paid excess compensation and also prayed for issuance of direction for Page 80 of 96 recovery of the excess amount paid from respondents No. 6 to 10 as well as from erring officers in accordance with law. During pendency of the writ petition the application for amendment in the prayer clause was made by which the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the award dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Annexure P/24), the same amendment was allowed.
105. The facts in brief as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a Joint Venture Company (JVC) by name and style of Bastar Railway Pvt. Ltd. (BRPL) which was brought in existence vide MoU dated 09.05.2015 between NMDC, Sail, IRCON and Government of Chhattisgarh as per the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. The company was incorporated for construction of 140 Km. Rowghat- Jagdalpur Broad Gauge Single Railway Line as a special railway project vide Gazette notification dated 04.04.2016 with an estimated cost of the project to the tune of Rs. 2538.3 Crores. For execution of the project 863 Hectare of land was to be acquired and as per the MoU the acquisition work was to be carried out by the Chhattisgarh Government along with IRCON. For acquisition of the said land Gazette notification was issued on 20.01.2017 by the Ministry of Railways. Subsequently, the Competent Authority, Bastar District issued a notification under 20A of the Railway Act on 21.08.2017 and also called for objection if any required to be raised by the land oustees within 30 days under Section 20D of the Railways Act. Thereafter, on 12.02.2018, the Additional Collector, District- Bastar passed compensation to the tune of Rs. 188.83 Crores for the land oustees.
106. The other petitioner namely Smt. Neelima Belsaria has submitted her application under Section 20F of the Railway Act before the Commissioner, Bastar for enhancement of compensation. The learned Commissioner vide its order dated 11.07.2019 has passed the award and thereafter vide its order Page 81 of 96 dated 02.08.2019 has stayed the effect and operation of the award and thereafter called the report from the Collector, Bastar.
107. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in total there were seven land holders in village Palli, out of which two have been paid compensation based on rural rates whereas five land holders have been paid compensation on urban rates i.e. respondents No. 6 to 10, as such, Rs. 86 crores have been wrongly transferred in the accounts of private respondents. The petitioner has also mentioned the compensation as paid to the seven account holders of Palli village in tabulation form as below:-
S Name of the land Area in Compensation Compensation Difference N holder Hec. paid payable 1 Bali Nagwanshi 2.69 70,62,28,954 7,79,72,110 62,82,56,844 2 Nilima w/o T.V. Ravi 1.04 25,19,76,110 4,38,93,116 20,80,82,994 3 Pakli w/o Late 0.12 2,28,91,076 27,43,978 2,01,47,098 Maniram 4 Nitya Gopal 0.249 16,89,624 16,40,412 49,212 5 Seema Rathi 0.055 9,33,026 13,91,776 -4,58,750 6 Omprakash Ukey 0.01 23,27,800 14,45,500 8,82,300 7 Suresh Kashyap 0.02 46,55,600 28,91,000 17,64,600
108. The said illegality is reflected in the newspaper report dated 19.07.2019 and thereafter on the basis of that report the Collector, Bastar constituted committee who has enquired the matter and submitted its report on 30.07.2019. On the basis of that report FIR bearing Crime No. 408/2019 has been registered and the matter is pending consideration before the police authorities. In the meantime, respondents No. 6 to 10 have filed Writ Petitions (criminal) assailing the submission of report by the collector and subsequent registration of the FIR before this Court. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in compliance of the award dated 12.02.2018 the petitioner has deposited the amount before the concerning authority to avoid their liability to pay further interest on the huge amount. The Collector in its report has given findings with regard Page 82 of 96 to involvement of each of the government officers and thereafter in his report has prima facie held that the government officers along with other private respondents land oustees have committed offence of fraud and cheating, as such, directed for registration of offence and in turn the police have registered offence under Sections 109, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 407, 408 and 409 IPC. He would further submit that since the award passed by the competent authority has been issued with malafide and arbitrariness, therefore, it is liable to be quashed by this Court. It has been further contended that while awarding the compensation the competent authority has committed gross illegality by willfully awarding compensation and interest under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which is not applicable in the present case. It has been further contended that the learned authority has granted compensation treating the land of respondents No. 6 to 10 as diverted land whereas the said land is agriculture land and not fit for the purposes of acquisition and would pray that the award dated 12.02.2018 passed by the competent authority be kindly set aside and grant of other reliefs as seizure of the accounts of the beneficiaries i.e. respondents No. 6 to 10 who have been paid excess compensation and also prayd for direction for recovery of the excess amount paid to them and action to be initiated against the erring officers as per the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.
109. Respondent No. 6 has filed a detailed return reiterating the grounds which have been taken by them in writ petition (criminal) assailing the authority of the collector to conduct inquiry and subsequent registration of the FIR on the basis of the report submitted by the Collector and also highlighted that said land belongs to urban area and village Palli falls within the ambit of Municipal Corporation, therefore, the award passed by the competent authority and affirmed by the Arbitrator, is legal and Page 83 of 96 just and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It has been also contended that the Collector has conducted fishing and roving enquiry in to the award and into the events preceding the award. The said three member inquiry committee without giving any opportunity of hearing to the answering respondents and other stakeholders and the revenue officers associated with the acquisition proceedings reached to the conclusion that there was fowl play on large scale. Further it has been contended that three members inquiry committee also concluded that the revenue officers and Railway Officers were also involved in the fowl play. It is beyond competency for the State Government officers i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer to conduct investigation into the acquisition proceeding by the Central Government for the purpose of Indian Railway and to conclude without hearing any affected parties. Further three members inquiry committee recommended for strict action and recovery of the excess compensation amount allegedly paid to the answering respondents, which is without jurisdiction.
110. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the return in which he has reiterated the same stand which he has taken while defending in the writ petition (criminal) and have referred to the guidelines issued for the year 2017-18 as per the Stamp Act issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh and they have also referred to the notifications to substantiate that the village Palli does not fall within the jurisdiction of Nagar Palika and it is panchayat, therefore, this Court is not repeating the facts which have already been taken and dealt with by this Court in Writ Petitions (Criminal) at length.
111. From the above stated factual matrix the point required to be determined by this Court is whether the award dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Competent Authority and arbitration award passed by the Arbitrator/Commissioner, Jagdalpur on Page 84 of 96 11.07.2019, can be interfered by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India?
112. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers wide powers to High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative pleads. It also enables the High Courts to mold reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this Country and would refer to judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others Vs. V.R. Rudani and Others 11 and would refer to para 19 which reads as under :-
"19.The scope of this article has been ex-plained by Subba Rao., in Dwarkanath v. Income Tax Officer, [1965] 3 SCR 536 at (540-41):
"This article is couched in compre-hensive phraseology and it ex-facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to reach injus- tice wherever it is found. The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the use of the expression "na- ture", for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the pecul- iar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to intro- duce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of Government into a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself."
11 (1989) 2 SCC 691 Page 85 of 96
113. He would further submit that this Court can always look into the subsequent events and developments that have been taken place after filing of the writ petition or filing of the Special Leave Petition and it is also within jurisdiction to pass subsequent order to give effect to the remedies available to the parties and would refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PRP Exports & others Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & others, has held at paragraph 8 as under:-
"8. Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that he is more concerned with the first question and arguments were advanced by him as well as Shri C. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, on that point. In our view, the Division Bench of the High Court is right in examining the subsequent events as well in a case where larger public interest is involved. This Court in All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar [(2010) 6 SCC 614] distinguished Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra), stating when a larger public interest is involved, the Court can always look into the subsequent events. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow :-
"45. We are of the view that the decision- maker can always rely upon subsequent materials to support the decision already taken when larger public interest is involved. This Court in Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti found no irregularity in placing reliance on a subsequent report to sustain the cancellation of the examination conducted where there were serious allegations of mass copying. The principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill case is not applicable where larger public interest is involved and in such situations, additional grounds can be looked into to examine the validity of an order. The finding recorded by the High Court that the report of CBI cannot be looked into to examine the validity of the order dated 4-6-2004, cannot be sustained"."
114. He would submit that this Court while exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India can definitely interfere Page 86 of 96 with the arbitration matters if there is perversity in the order that must stare one in the face. It has been further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in any case the hierarchy in our legal frame work mandates that a legislative enactment cannot curtail a constitutional right and he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India and Others12 wherein it has been held at paragraph No. 11, which is extracted below:-
"11. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi-judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation."
115. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would submit that the case as projected by the petitioner is not a case where petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be entertained by this Court. He would further submit that it is settled legal position that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances writ petition should not be 12 (2011) 14 SCC 337 Page 87 of 96 entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
116. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is exceptionable circumstances where this Court should exercise its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To substantiate his submission he would submit that by making fraud, compensation has been enhanced to more than 100 times which has caused huge financial burden to the public Exchequer and the whole projects have been hampered because of the arbitration award passed by the learned Competent Authority. There is clear cut case of fraud which vitiates entire things, therefore, this is a case where this Court should not restrain themselves from deciding the matter on merits of the case in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Bhaven Constitution Vs. Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.13, wherein it has been held at paragraph 16 which is extracted as under:-
"16.Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 chose to impugn the order passed by the arbitrator under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration Act through a petition under Article 226/227 of the Indian Constitution. In the usual course, the Arbitration Act provides for a mechanism of challenge under Section 34. The opening phase of Section 34 reads as 'Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3)'. The use of term 'only' as occurring under the provision serves two purposes of making the enactment a complete code and lay down the procedure."
117. Since no one has raised objection about the maintainability of the writ petition at the initial stage and thereafter, various orders have been passed, even otherwise, as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Deep Industries Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & another14 that if exceptional circumstances or patently lacking in jurisdiction are passed, this 13 Decided on 06.01.2021 14 (2020) 15 SCC 706 Page 88 of 96 Court can hear the matter under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot lose sight of the facts that the land losers or the Government officials against whom, the FIR has been registered have also assailed that registration of FIR and subsequent criminal proceeding before this Court by filing writ petition contending that the proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority while determining the compensation or award passed by the Commissioner has submitted that award has been passed in accordance with law, therefore, the registration of FIR is illegal. On the other hand, the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) is assailing the award as well as determination of compensation by the Competent Authority, therefore, to avoid difference of opinion by different forum, this is a peculiar situation where this Court should not restrain in deciding validity of the arbitration award and determination of compensation by the authority, therefore, the matter is finally decided by this Court on its merits.
118. This Court has called upon the records of Competent Authority, as well as Arbitrator, who has passed the arbitration award to ascertain what are the materials have been considered by them while passing the award or determining the compensation and to examine whether there is any perversity while determining compensation by the Competent Authority. The record of the Competent Authority will reflect that the objection raised by Bali Nagwanshi has been allowed and it has been held that his land belongs to urban area, without considering any notification issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh while recording such finding. It has also been reflected from the record that the Competent Authority while assessing the compensation has only mentioned about the guidelines for the year 2017-18, it has not spoken which provisions have been made applicable while determining th compensation. There was no material consideration with regard to the guidelines and only reference Page 89 of 96 was made whereas it was necessary for the Competent Authority while assessing the compensation should have atleast mentioned which provisions are made applicable and how the land of the land owners falls within the such category of the guideline. There is no such exercise done by the Competent Authority and while affirming the award, the Commissioner/ Arbitrator has also not done any such exercise, which shows non-application of mind and clearly speaks about the perversity while passing of the award.
119. Similarly, while recording the finding the land belonging to Bali Nagwanshi is diverted land and award has been passed treating the land to be diverted land and situated at urban area. The Competent Authority in its award has only referred to the guidelines of 2017-18 but has not taken into consideration which provisions of the guidelines have been applied for determining the compensation. The record also contains some Gadna Patrak (Calculation-Sheet). That calculation-sheet is also silent with regard to how the calculation has been done. The record simply said "Bhumi ka Muawaja Patrak Guidlines ke Anusar". Learned counsel for respondents No. 6 and 7 would submit that calculation sheet has been done strictly as per the guidelines therefore, the award passed by the learned Competent Authority is justified and should not be interfered by this Court. In their support they have referred to various provisions and guidelines. But the record is silent and does not reflect which provisions of the guidelines have been made effective while calculating the compensation, even no reasons have been assigned how this particular provisions of guidelines have been made effective. This shows non-application of mind by the Competent Authority. Thus, the award suffers from non-application of mind and without consideration of the guidelines, as such suffers from perversity and patent illegality which can be interfered by this Court.
Page 90 of 96120. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that village Palli does not fall within urban area whereas the learned counsel for Respondents No. 6 and 7 while referring to the guidelines would submit that it falls within the urban area. This is a disputed fact and various notifications have also been submitted either by the petitioner that village Palli is still in the Gram Panchayat and does not fall within the ambit of Nagar Palika whereas learned counsel for the respondent has referred to guidelines wherein village Palli has been declared as Lokmanya Tilak Ward No. 37. These are disputed facts. The award has been passed by the Competent Authority without considering the circular and guidelines and excess amount of compensation has been granted. Thus, the award suffers from non application of mind and deserves to be set aside and accordingly the writ petition (civil) is allowed in part.
121. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the arbitration award dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Jagdalpur is also illegal and same is liable to be quashed as the petitioner/Bastar Railway Private Limited (BRPL) has not been arrayed as party. He would further submit that the respondent No. 7/Smt. Neelima Belsaria has filed an application on 26.02.2019 for re-calculation of the compensation and grant of interest before the Arbitrator/Commissioner, Jagdalpur wherein the Additional Collector/Competent Authority as well as Chief Executive Officer (Construction), South Eastern Central Railway have been made party, but the petitioner has not been made party. The Commissioner vide its award dated 11.07.2019 has allowed the application without any notice to the petitioner, which is in violation of the principle of natural justice and he would refer to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by Lrs. & others15 wherein it has been held at paragraph 42, 15 (2011) 2 SCC 54 Page 91 of 96 which is extracted below:-
"42. In view of the above discussion, we hold that :
(i) the DDA falls within the definition of the expressions "local authority" [Section 3(aa)] and "person interested" [Section 3(b)] of the Act;
(ii) the DDA was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector;
(iii) the failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue notice to the DDA and give an opportunity to it to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the land owners was fatal to the award passed by him;
(iv) the DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce evidence before the Reference Court could enhance market value of the acquired land entitling the respondents to claim higher compensation and, as no notice or opportunity was given to the DDA by the Reference Court, the judgments rendered by it are liable to be treated as nullity;
(v) the Division Bench of the High Court also committed serious error by further enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the contesting respondents without requiring them to implead the DDA as party respondent so as to enable it to contest their prayer for grant of higher compensation."
122. The learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 7 would submit that the petitioner's contention that Competent Authority (instead of Arbitrator) while determining the compensation have not been made party to the case and on this count alone the award is liable to be set aside, cannot be accepted and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Bholanath Sharma (Supra) is distinguishable on its own facts. He would further submit that the said judgment is not applicable as it was delivered because of the specific provisions contained in Section 15 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 as amended by permitting any local authority or company to appear and adduce evidence where cost of the land acquisition is borne out of fund controlled by which company or authority. This is not the situation in the Page 92 of 96 present case. As per the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, it is crystal clear that it is only the person whose land is being acquired and the Central Government i.e. Ministry of Railway who must be heard for determining the compensation and on other party is entitled to hearing. He would also refer to Section 2 (29A) of the Railways Act, which is extracted below:-
1. Person claiming interested, compensation for acquisition of land
2. The tribal and other forest dwellers
3. Persons interested in easement affecting the land
4. Persons having tenancy right under the relevant stated law.
123. Therefore, the learned counsel for respondent No. 7 would submit that the petitioner does not fall in any of the category, therefore, it is not necessary party to be heard at the time of passing of the award by the Competent Authority at the time of determining compensation or by the Arbitrator.
124. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents No. 7 that the petitioner does not fall within any of the category to be heard can not be accepted as amount of compensation was deposited by the petitioner and they are adversely affected by the compensation granted by the competent authority and also by the arbitration award passed by the learned Commissioner, Jagdalpur, therefore, they are necessary party and without they are being heard, the award is in violation of principle of natural justice, on this Court alone the award is liable to be set aside.
Even otherwise, if we see the MoU dated 09.05.2015, the petitioner is a Joint Venture Company (JVC), which consists Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. (IRCON), National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Chhattisgarh Minerals Development Corporation Ltd (CMDC) took part to build, construct, operate and maintain Jagdalpur Rowghat Rail Corridor Project. As per Page 93 of 96 clause 7 of the MoU, the JVC shall be responsible for payment of compensation of land and also implementation of rehabilitation plan as per LAPR Act and rehabilitation policy of the State Government, therefore, the petitioner falls within the ambit of person interested and as such, he was necessary party before the proceedings. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 20D of the Railways Act, 1989, the competent authority is bound to hear and dispose of the objection of person interested in the land which is to be acquired under the Railways Act. The word 'interested person' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, which is as under:-
"A person having a property right in or claims against a thing, such as a trust or decendent's state. The meaning may be extent to include an entity, such as a business i.e. a creditor of a decedent."
125. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has also examined the word 'person interested' in case of Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor Coutinho (Dead) by LR's16, and has held at paragraph 14, which is extracted as under:-
"14. Thus, the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to favour the view that the definition of 'person interested' must be liberally construed so as to' include a body, local authority, or a company for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is bound under an agreement to pay the compensation. In our opinion, this view accords with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. How can it be said that a person for whose benefit the land is acquired and who is to pay the compensation is not a person interested even though its stake may be extremely vital ? For instance, the land acquisition proceedings may be held to be invalid and thus a person concerned is completely deprived of the benefit which is proposed to be given to him. Similarly if such a person is not heard by the Collector or a court, he may have to pay a very heavy compensation which, in case he is allowed to appear before a court, he could have satisfied it that the 16 (1980) 3 SCC 223 Page 94 of 96 compensation was far too heavy having regard to the nature and extent of the land. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the Orissa High Court or even by the Calcutta High Court that a company, local authority or a person or whose benefit the land is acquired is not an interested person. We are satisfied that such a person is vitally interested both in the title to the property as also in the compensation to be paid therefor because both these factors concern its future course of action and if decided against him, seriously prejudice his rights. Moreover, in view of the decision of this Court referred to above, we hold that the appellant was undoubtedly a person interested as contemplated by s. 18(1) of the Act. The High Court, therefore, committed an error in throwing out the appeal of the appellant on the ground that it had no locus to file an appeal before the Bench."
126. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) & others Vs. District Judge, Udhampur & others 17, and has held at paragraph 8 which is extracted as under:-
"8. This view was reiterated in Neelagangabai v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0254/1990: [1990] 3 SCR 20; Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Ashok Singhal and Ors. (1991) Suppl. 2 SCC 419; Union of India v. Sher Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0451/1993:
[1993] 1 SCR 326 and Bihar State Electricity Board v. State of Bihar and Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 157/- 1600/94 dated February 21, 1994. Thus it is settled law that the requisitioning authority is a person interested since it is interested in the fixation of the proper and just market value or compensation of the land acquired on its behalf as well as to see that the true extent of the land is acquired and is free from encumbrances. The participation in the proceedings by the local officers is to enable not only the determination of the proper and just market value or compensation in their presence after laying necessary and relevant evidence but also to secure valid title to the land acquired so that land acquisition officer and the court determines just and proper market value of the lands. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant is a proper and necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is also the person interested under Section 2(d) of the 17 (1994) 4 SCC 737 Page 95 of 96 Act. Accordingly the view of the High Court that the appellants are not interested person is clearly illegal. It is accordingly set aside."
127. In view of the above stated legal position, it is quite clear that the petitioner/BRPL is interested person, as such, he should have been noticed by the learned Arbitrator where the award was challenged by respondent No. 7. Thus, the arbitration award passed by the Commissioner is in violation of principle of natural justice and is liable to be set aside by this Court also.
128. Accordingly, the award dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Competent Authority and the award passed by the Commissioner, Jagdalpur dated 11.07.2019 are set aside. Resultantly WPC No. 3355 of 2019 is allowed. In consequence, the learned Competent Authority is directed to re-calculate the award after considering the circular, guidelines and if required to ascertain the factual matrix, he may direct for recording of the evidence also while passing the award. The exercise should be carried out within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Considering the fact that this Court has granted interim protection of no coercive steps in WPCR No. 1031 of 2019 shall be continued till the award is passed by the Competent Authority afresh subject to condition that the petitioner/land losers whose lands have been acquired or purported to be acquired shall file an affidavit before the concerned Bank within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order for transfer of amount, which they have received towards compensation within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the Bank shall immediately transfer the amount in account of the land acquisition officer, who shall not disburse the amount till the award is finally decided by the Competent Authority.
129. The petitioners/land losers are also directed to refund the amount of compensation, which has been received by them in pursuance of award dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Competent Page 96 of 96 Authority. Their entitlement of compensation and quantum will be decided by the Competent Authority afresh, in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to Bastar Railway Private Limited and others.
130. So far as the Government Officers are concerned, they are also granted protection of no coercive steps with a condition that they will mark their presence before the Station House Officer, Jagdalpur every month till the award is finally decided by the Competent Authority and subsequent presence will be dependable on final outcome of the award.
131. With these observations and directions, WPCR No. 674 of 2019, 979 of 2019, 1037 of 2019, 751 of 2019, 828 of 2019, 1031 of 2019 & 1096 of 2019 are disposed of and WPC No. 3355 of 2019 is allowed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju / Arun / Kishore