Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Neelima Belsaria vs Bastar Railway Private Limited on 28 June, 2022
Page No.1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR
WA No. 81 of 2022
• Bali Nagwanshi, Son of Shri Buter Nagwanshi, Aged About
54 Years, Resident of House No. 87, Sun City, Jagdalpur,
District Bastar Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department
of Revenue and Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Dr. Ayyaj Tamboli, Collector, Bastar, earlier having office at
Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
3. Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur through its Station House
Officer, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
4. Bank of Baroda through its Branch Manager, Branch
Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
5. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-1.
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 Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 64 of 2022
• Bali Nagwanshi, Son of Shri Buter Nagwanshi, aged about
54 Years, resident of House No. 87, Sun City, Jagdalpur,
District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department
of Revenue and Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Dr. Ayyaj Tamboli, Collector, Bastar, having office at
Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
3. Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur through its Station House
Officer, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
Page No.2
4. Bank of Baroda through its Branch Manager, Branch
Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
5. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-1.
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 Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 77 of 2022
• Smt. Neelima Belsaria, W/o Shri T.V. Ravi, Aged 36 Years,
R/o Village-Pallai, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Bastar Railway Private Limited Through Chief Executive
Officer Bastar Railway Private Limited Global Exploration
Centre, NMDC Green Valley City, Housing Board Colony,
Boriyakala, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary To The
Government of Chhattisgarh Department of Revenue and
Disaster Management: Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Union of India Through The Secretary to the Department of
Railway, Raisina Road, Rail Bhawan, 1, New Delhi
4. The Commissioner-Cum-Arbitrator Bastar Division, Bastar
District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
5. The Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
6. Additional Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Officer /
Competent Authority Bastar, District-Bastar Chhattisgarh.
7. Bali Nagwanshi, S/o Shri Buter Nagwanshi, R/o Sun City,
Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
8. Smt. Pakli, W/o Shri Maniram, R/o Palli Village, Jagdalpur
Chhattisgarh.
9. Nitya Gopal, S/o Shitij Chand, R/o Reena Village Kangoli,
District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
10. Seema Rathi, W/o Shri Ajay Rathi, R/o Village-Palli,
Jagdalpur , District-Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
Page No.3
WA No. 83 of 2022
• Smt. Neelima Belsaria, W/o Shri T.V. Ravi, aged 36 Years,
R/o Village-Pallai, Tahsil-Jagdalpur, District Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary to the Govt. of
Chhattisgarh: Department of Revenue and Disaster
Management: Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Union of India Through: The Secretary to the Department of
Railway, Raisina Road, Rail Bhawan, 1, New Delhi.
3. The Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
4. Station House Officer Police Station-Jagdalpur, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
5. Bastar Railway Private Limited Through: Chief Executive
Officer Bastar Railway Private Limited Global Exploration
Centre, NMDC Green Valley City, Housing Board Colony,
Boriyakala, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WA No. 115 of 2022
• Hira Lal Nayak, S/o Late Kunwar Singh Nayak, Aged 63
Years, R/o Vijay Nagar Chowk, Near Avanti Vihar Sector - 2,
Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
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, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 129 of 2022
1. Siyaram Kurre, S/o Shri Sant Ram Kurre, aged 64 Years,
Retired Additional Collector R/o Patrakar Colony, Ring Road-
2 Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
Page No.4
2. Dindayal Mandavi, S/o Shri Bharat Singh Mandavi, aged 40
Years, At Present:Sub Divisional Officer Keshkal,
Kondagaon District-Kondagon, Chhattisgarh.
3. Arjun Shrivastava, aged 57 Years, S/o Shri Y.L. Shrivastava
Tahsildar (In-Charge) - Lohandiguda Bastar, District Bastar
Chhattisgarh.
4. Dharam Narayan Sahu, aged 64 Years, S/o Shri Lakhan
Sahu Retd Patwari, R/o Bhagat Singh Ward-6 Patharaguda,
Jagdalpur District Jagdapur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary to the Govt. of
Chhattisgarh: Department of Revenue and Disaster
Management: Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur
District-Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Union of India Through The Secretary To The Department of
Railway, Raisina Road, Rail Bhawan, 1, New-Delhi.
3. The Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
4. Station House Officer Police Station Jagdalpur, District-
Bastar Chhattisgarh.
5. Bastar Railway Private Limited Through: Chief Executive
Officer Bastar Railway Private Limited Global Exploration
Centre, NMDC Green Valley City, Housing Board Colony,
Boriyakala, Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 144 of 2022
• Koushal Kumar Thakur, S/o Sevak Ram Thakur, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Village and Post Puri, Tahsil and Police
Station Charama, District-Kanker(Chhattisgarh). at present
R/o D.N.K. Colony, Kanera Road, Kondagaon, Police
Station-Kondagoan, District-Kondagoan, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of
Revenue and Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur
(Chhattisgarh).
2. Secretary, Union of India, Department of Railway, Raisina
Road, Rail Bhawan, 1, New Delhi.
3. The Collector, Jagdalpur, District-Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
Page No.5
4. Station House Officer, Police Station Jagdalpur, District
Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WA No. 119 of 2022
1. Suresh B. Matali, S/o Shri B.S. Matali, Aged About 52 Years
Addl. General Manager (Civil), R/o House No. 10, Aashoka
Lifestyle, Dharampura-3, Police Station City Kotwali,
Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 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 Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o
H/No. 12-2-16/2, Chinna Veedhi, Samalkot, 533440, East
Godawari District, Andhra Pradesh.
---- Appellants
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 Chhattisgarh.
2. Union of India Through The Secretary to the Department of
Railway, Raisina Road, Rail Bhawan, 1, New Delhi, District
New Delhi, Delhi.
3. The Collector Jagadalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
4. Station House Officer, Police Station Jagdalpur, District-
Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
_________________________________________________
For Appellants : Heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
senior counsel (through video-
conferencing) assisted by Mr. Amit
Verma, learned counsel, appearing for the
appellant in WA No. 81/2022 and WA No.
64/2022, Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava,
learned counsel, appearing for the
appellant, in WA No. 77/2022, 83/2022
and 129/2022, Mr. Siddharth Shukla,
learned counsel, appearing for the
appellant in WA No. 115/2022, Mr. Arvind
Page No.6
Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing
for the appellant, in WA No. 119/2022, Mr.
Varun Sharma, learned counsel,
appearing for the appellants, in WA No.
144/2022.
For Respondents : Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel
(through video-conferencing), assisted by
Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Mr. Ujjwal Choubey
and Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, learned
counsel, appearing for the respondent-
Bastar Railway Private Limited, Ms. Astha
Shukla, learned Government Advocate
and Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy
Government Advocate for the State and
Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant
Solicitor General for the Union of India.
Date of hearing : 13-05-2022
Date of Judgment : 28-06-2022
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Judge
C.A.V. Judgment
Per R.C.S. Samant, J.
1. Writ Appeal No.64/2022 has been preferred challenging the
order dated 10.01.2022 passed in Writ Petition(Civil) No.
3355/2019 by which the petition was allowed and the award
dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Competent Authority and
the Arbitration Award passed by the Commissioner,
Jagdalpur dated 11.7.2019 were set aside.
Writ Appeal No.81/2022 has been preferred against
the order dated 10.1.2022 in Writ Petition(Cr.)
Page No.7
No.1031/2019. Writ Appeal No.81/2022 is preferred against
the same order by which the order dated 10.1.2022 in WPC
No.3355/2019 has been challenged.
In Writ Appeal No.119/2022 the order of Single Bench
in Writ Petition(Cr.)No.828/2019 passed on 10.1.2022,
dismissing the petition is under challenge.
In Writ Appeal No.144/2022 the order of Single Bench
dated 10.1.2022 dismissing the Writ Petition(Cr.)
No.1096/2019 has been challenged.
Writ Appeal No.129/2022 has been preferred against
the same order dated 10.1.2022 by which the Writ
Petition(Cr.) No.674/2019 preferred by the appellants, was
dismissed.
Writ Appeal No.83/2022 has been preferred by the
appellants against the order dated 10.1.2022 of Single
Bench dismissing the Writ Petition(Cr.) No.751/2019.
Writ Appeal No.115/2022 has been preferred against
the order dated 10.1.2022 of Single Bench by which the Writ
Petition(Cr.) No.1037/2019 has been dismissed.
Writ Appeal No.77/2022 has been preferred against
the judgment dated 10.1.2022 by which the Writ
Petition(Civil) No.3355/2019, was allowed.
2. A project for construction of single railway line of length of
Page No.8
140km named as Rowghat, Jagdalpur broad-gauge single
railway line was declared as Special Railway Project by
Gazette Notification dated 4.4.2016. For execution of this
railway project, 1863 hectares of land was proposed to be
acquired, out of which 140.233 hectares were private lands.
A notification dated 21.8.2017 was issued under Section 20A
of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act, 1989'), by the
competent authority declaring the intention to acquire the
lands for the execution of the Special Railway Project. After
granting time for objections, the notification for acquisition of
lands was issued under Section 20E of the Act, 1989, on
21.12.2017. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.64/2022,
81/2022, 77/2022 and 83/2022 were the land owners, whose
land was situated in Village-Palli. They were the affected
persons as their lands were acquired for this Special
Railway Project. The Additional Collector District-
Bastar/Competent Authority, proceeded for determination of
the award in application No.34/2017 and passed the award
date 12.2.2018 granting compensation of Rs.188.83 crores.
Khasra No.123/1 of area 7000 sq. meter and khasra
No.123/2 of area 19900 sq.meter was acquired from
appellant Bali Nagwanshi. Plot bearing Khasra No.125/1 to
125/29, 125/31, 125/33 to 125/37, which were plots situated
in the colony developed in the name of "Neelima Spandan"
Page No.9
were also acquired for this project. Compensation for land
acquired from Bali Nagwanshi was determined as 70.62
Crores for the total area of the land which was acquired
being 2.69 hectares. Similarly, the compensation was
determined in favor of appellant Neelima Belsariya to the
tune of Rs.25.19 Crores for the total area of the land which
was acquired being 1.040 hectares.
3. Appellant Bali Nagwanshi in WA No.81/2022 & 64/2022, not
being satisfied with the compensation determined, preferred
arbitration reference before the Commissioner, Bastar
Division, on which vide order dated 11.7.2019, the
Arbitration Award was given, by enhancing the
compensation and granting additional amount of
Rs.7,79,04,091/-.
4. The arbitration reference was also made by appellant-
Neelima Belsariya in WA No.83/2022 & 77/2022 before
Additional Commissioner, Bastar Division, which was
decided by order dated 11.7.2019 and she got an
enhancement of Rs.98,39,610/-.
5. The Collector District-Bastar took cognizance of a news item
published in daily newspaper- Navbharat dated 19.7.2019
about discrepancies and scam in the acquisition matter and
Page No.10
he constituted a Committee of three members to inquire into
the matter.
6. The Committee made an inquiry and submitted a report. The
Collector District-Bastar, by a memo dated 30.7.2019, by
relying upon the report of the Committee, came to the
conclusion that the determination of compensation by the
Competent Authority and the Arbitrator was erroneous and
that the Railway Officials, the then Additional Collector, SDM
and others were involved in the conspiracy for determination
of huge compensation in favor of Bali Nagwanshi and
Neelima Belsariya beyond their entitlement and on this
basis, he directed lodging of FIR. The FIR was lodged as
Crime No.409/2019 against the Dharmnarayan Sahu
(Patwari), Arjun Shrivastava (Revenue Inspector),
Deendayal Mandavi (Tahsildar), Siyaram Kurre (SDO,
Revenue), Heeralal Nayak (Additional Collector cum
Competent Authority), Kaushal Thakur (in-charge sub-
Registrar), Officer from IRCON Suresh B. Mitali, Officer from
IRCON A.R. Murthy, Range Officer G.R. Rao, Bali
Nagwanshi and Neellima Belsariya. Various writ petitions
have been disposed off by the Single Bench by the
impugned order and they are the appellants before this
Court in their respective writ appeals.
Page No.11
7. The petitioners in Writ Petition(Cr.) 674/2019 Siyaram and
others are the Revenue Officers. The petitioners in Writ
Petition(Cr.) No.1027/2019, Heeralal Nayak was Competent
Authority, the petitioner in Writ Petition(Cr.) No.1096/2019
Kaushal Kumar Thakur was the Clerk/In-Charge of Sub-
Registrar Office, Neelima Belsariya and one another
petitioner in Writ Petition(Cr.) No.97/2019. Neelima Belsariya
again the petitioner in Writ Petition(Cr.) No.751/2019, Bali
Nagwanshi the petitioner in Writ Petition(Cr.) No.1031/2019
and Suresh B. Mitali and another petitioner in Writ
Petition(Cr.) No.828/2019 had preferred the writ petitions
praying for quashment of the FIR lodged against them. The
Bastar Railway Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'BRPL'), petitioner in Writ
Petition(Civil) No.3355/2019 had preferred the petition
praying for quashment of the compensation award of the
Competent Authority and also the Arbitration Award given by
the Arbitrator / Commissioner, Bastar Division. The learned
Single Bench has by the detailed order allowed the Writ
Petition(Civil) No.3355/2019, by setting aside the Award
passed by the Competent Authority dated 12.2.2018 and by
the Commissioner dated 11.7.2019. All the other writ
petitions(criminal) preferred were dismissed.
8. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner Bali
Page No.12
Nagwanshi submits, that Writ Petition(Civil) No.3355/2019
was not maintainable, as there was remedy available under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996., (for
short, 'the Act, 1996'). Such an application has also been
preferred by the respondent Bastar Railway Pvt. Ltd, before
the Court of District Judge, Bastar. Hence, the petition was
not maintainable on this ground. It is further submitted, that
according to the reliefs that were claimed by the petitioner
BRPL in Writ Petition(Civil) No.3355/2019, initially, the
petition was not maintainable. An application for amendment
was filed by which additional relief, which was prayer for
setting aside the award dated 11.7.2019 passed by the
Commissioner was allowed at the final hearing stage and
then the same relief was granted to the petitioner BRPL. It
is further submitted that after filing of an application under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996, such a prayer for setting aside
the Award of the Arbitrator under Article 226 Constitution
was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on judgment of
Supreme Court in SBP & Co. Vs. Patel Engg. Ltd.,
reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618 and Haryana Urban
Development Authority, Karnal Vs. Mehta Construction
Company, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 396. This
objection was raised by the petitioner side, but the same
was not decided. Hence, the order allowing the Writ
Page No.13
Petition(Civil) No.3355/2019, is erroneous. The learned
Single Judge has made an erroneous mention in the
paragraph No. 117 of the impugned order, that no one has
raised objection about maintainability of the writ petition at
the initial stage, which is not a correct statement and hence,
the order of the learned Single Bench in Writ Petition(Civil)
No.3355/2019, is liable to be set aside.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for
the petitioner, that the land of the petitioner Bali Nagwanshi
that was acquired was urban land, which was situated
adjacent to the main road and the compensation was
determined in accordance with guidelines of 2017-2018, by
the Inspector General Registrar and Superintendent(Stamp),
Raipur. There was provision of compensation in accordance
with per square meter market value of the plot situated
within the depth of 20 meters from the main road and
accordingly, compensation was determined by the
Competent Authority and was enhanced by the
Commissioner, Bastar Division / Arbitrator.
10. The guidelines of 2017-2018 specifically mentions in Serial
No.34 & 37, that for the land situated on the way from MGM
School to Palli Naka, the compensation was to be
Page No.14
determined at the rate of Rs.13,800/- per sq. meter, for such
lands which are situated within the 20 meters depth from the
main road.
11. By the Government Notification dated 2.7.2014, the State
Government determined the Extent of Wards of Nagar
Nigam, Jagdalpur. According to the Schedule, the Serial
No.37 mentions of Lokmanya Tilak Ward, which includes the
Palli area. In the details of the Ward No.37, there is mention
of Palli Naka. Clause No.10 of the guidelines itself mentions,
that the urban residential area which is situated adjacent the
main road, being used for Commercial/Industrial purpose for
that, the market price was to be calculated at the enhanced
rate upto 25% of the compensation for that area. Clause
No.11 further provides, that the locality/colony/route in the
urban area, which has been shown in the guidelines, in that
place, the market price will be calculated according to the
rate of the locality/colony/route, which has been followed in
determining the compensation. It is submitted that the
Collector is bound to follow the provision under Section 26 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for
short, 'the Act, 2013') and, therefore, there is no error
committed by the Competent Authority, in determining the
Page No.15
compensation and, further, the Commissioner also has not
committed any error in enhancing the compensation in favor
of the appellant Bali Nagwanshi. The Award of the
Competent Authority and the Arbitrator both are sustainable.
The land that had been acquired by the respondent
authorities was purchased by the petitioner Bali Nagwanshi
about nine years prior to its acquisition. On these grounds,
the impugned order is challenged and he contends that the
FIR is baseless and vexatious.
12. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel in Writ
Appeal No.77/2022, 129/2022 & 83/2022 submits, that Writ
Petition(Civil) No.3355/2019 was not maintainable as it was
based only on the report of the Collector. The Collector has
no authority to inquire into the matter under the provisions of
the Act, 1989. The whole procedure of acquisition has taken
place under the provisions of the Act, 1989. The Additional
Collector was notified as Competent Authority. The
notification dated 21.8.2007 issued under Section 20A of the
Act, 1989, can neither be challenged in any Court nor can it
be examined by a Criminal Court. It is submitted that the
petitioners filed a Writ Petition(Civil) No.3355/2019 after long
delay and hence it was not maintainable. On the basis of the
prayer clause which was initially present the petition was not
Page No.16
maintainable. The learned Single Bench has allowed the
amendment in prayer clause, which was included later on,
regarding which the objection was raised, that when an
application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, was pending,
prayer for setting aside the award of the arbitrator should not
have been entertained by this Court in the writ petition.
Hence, the order of Single Bench in Writ Petition(Civil)
No.3355/2019 is not sustainable.
13. It is further submitted by Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel
that the land belonging to the appellant- Neelima Belsaria
was urban land situated in Ward No.37 and there was a
diversion order for the same regarding land use. This land
was present in the colony developed and styled as "Neelima
Spandan". The State Government had passed the order
restraining transfer/ sale of land in the project area for the
Railway construction. The appellant- Neelima Belsaria had
challenged this order in Writ Petition(227) No.238/2012
which was disposed off on 07.08.2014 by the learned Single
Judge partly allowing the petition. It was held in that order
that the diversion for the land use was just and proper and in
accordance with law.
He endorses the submissions made by the learned
counsel for Bali Nagwanshi, that the land in question is
Page No.17
situated in the urban area under the municipal limits of
Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur. Therefore, the
determination of compensation as per the guidelines, was
proper. It is again submitted that in the Collector report,
suspicion has been raised on the notification itself regarding
which the Collector has no authority or jurisdiction and,
therefore, the notification concerned cannot be examined by
a criminal Court. Hence, the order in Writ Petition(Civil)
No.3355/2019 is not sustainable and also the FIR lodged
against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
14. Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel in Writ Appeal
no.119/2022 submits, that the appellants are not the
employees of Bastar Railway Private Limited. They are
employees of the IRCON International Limited(Government
of India undertaking under the Ministry of Railways). These
appellants have nothing to do with the acquisition process or
determination of compensation. There had been no
involvement of these appellants in whatsoever manner. In
the FIR lodged, the offence under Section 109 of IPC has
been added to show a conspiracy and that these appellants
were the part of the conspiracy. It is submitted that the
proposal for construction of Railway Station in Palli, was not
given by these appellants. In the report of the Collector
Page No.18
dated 30.7.2019, it is mentioned in Clause F , that there is
requirement for inquiry by Competent Railway Authorities,
regarding the involvement of Railway Officers and necessity
of criminal action against them. Therefore, it was not a
recommendation for making any inquiry against the
appellants, who are not the railway employees. The learned
Single Bench has very cursorily decided this point raised by
the appellants/petitioners holding, that the ground raised
cannot be examined by the Writ Court, which is erroneous,
therefore, the appellants in this case are entitled for grant of
relief as prayed in this writ appeal.
15. Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ
Appeal No.144/2022 submits, that the appellant in this case
was Registration Clerk and his only role was to provide the
calculation sheet as per the guidelines, which was laid down
under the provisions of Stamp Act. A departmental action
was initiated against this appellant which was withdrawn
later on. It is further submitted that under Section 186 of the
Act, 1989, immunity has been granted to the public servant
under which this appellant is also protected, hence, the
lodging of FIR against him was liable to be quashed, it is
prayed that this writ appeal be allowed and relief be granted.
Page No.19
16. Mr. Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant in
Writ Appeal No.115/2022 submits, that the appellant in this
case was the Competent Authority and he has not played
any role in the said conspiracy as alleged in the Collector's
report. The award was passed on the basis of the
documents that were supplied, which included the guidelines
of 2017-2018. The appellant has performed his duty strictly
in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no criminality
present on the part of this appellant. The learned Single
Judge has erred in holding, that the case requires
investigation. Whereas the FIR lodged was liable to be
quashed, hence, it is prayed that this writ appeal be allowed
and the appellant may be granted relief as prayed.
17. Ms. Astha Shukla, learned State counsel, representing State
of Chhattisgarh, Collector, Bastar and the S.H.O. of the
Police Station, Kotwali, Jagdalpur, submits that the Collector
had the authority to make an inquiry into the allegation of
corruption and fraud, in determination of compensation by
the concerned authority and also against the persons hugely
benefited, without there being any entitlement of them. As
soon as the matter came to the notice of Collector from the
news reports published regarding large scale irregularity and
illegality committed in land acquisition proceeding for Bastar
Page No.20
Railway project, inquiry has been ordered and on the basis
of the inquiry report the F.I.R. has been lodged. The learned
Single Judge has very correctly held that Collector is
competent to make such an inquiry and that the lodging of
F.I.R. is a correct step taken. It is further submitted that the
land belonging to the appellant Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima
Belsariya was clearly situated in the rural areas, which has
been erroneously considered as urban area for determining
enhanced compensation in favour of these appellants,
therefore, there is no error in the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge. Therefore, all the Writ Appeals are
liable to be dismissed.
18. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for respondent
BRPL, firstly submits on the ground of maintainability of
WPC No.3355/2019, that the High Court is empowered
under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the petition
regarding which he has placed reliance on the judgments of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Andi Mukta
Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti
Mahotsav Smarak Trust Vs. V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC
691, PRP Exports & Ors. Vs. Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2014) 13 SCC 692,
State of U.P. Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., (2011) 13
Page No.21
SCC 77. It is submitted that it is a case of large scale
corruption and huge discrepancy in the determination of the
compensation in the acquisition process. Therefore, it is an
exceptional case which was required to be challenged under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, invoking of
Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is not adequate remedy. It is
further submitted that at the time of filing of WPC
No.3355/2019 on 12-09-2019, no proceeding was initiated
under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. However, an application
under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 had been filed on 18-02-
2021, which is not yet registered by the court concerned.
Hence, it is only under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
efficacious remedy can be sought. Hence, for these reasons
WPC No.3355/2019 was maintainable and the question of
maintainability has been correctly decided by the learned
Single Bench.
19. Countering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellants it is submitted that the acquired lands are situated
in village Palli which is a panchayat area and is not notified
so far as municipal area. The last notification including
villages in the limits of the municipal council Jagdalpur of
Bastar District is dated 03-09-2002, by which Village Palli
was not included as the municipal area. Claim of the
Page No.22
appellants that village Palli is included in the Ward No.37,
that is Lokmanya Tilak ward, is without any basis. The
description of the Ward No.37 Lokmanya Tilak ward
mentions that the western boundary of the ward is shared
with the eastern boundary of Village Palli. The description of
northern boundary mentioning Palli Naka is not to be
understood as Palli Village. It is further submitted that the
appellants, namely, Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria
have made purchase of agricultural lands, regarding which
description of area given is in hectares and the stamp duty
was affixed accordingly. There is no notification present
under Section 5(A) of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act,
1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961) for inclusion of Village- Palli
as municipal area. The notification dated 22-07-2014 on
which the appellants' side is placing reliance was issued
under Section 29(1) of the Act, 1961 only for the election
purposes and no inference can be drawn that villages
included in the extension of ward under Section 29 of the
Act, 1961 are municipal areas. The last notification for the
inclusion in municipal areas was dated 03-09-2002. It is
further submitted that by notification dated 21-07-2014,
Gram Panchayat area has been constituted by the State of
Chhattisgarh (C.G.) in which serial No.23 shows, that Gram
Panchayat Kumhraband includes Village Palli, which
Page No.23
confirms that Village Palli is a notified Gram Panchayat area.
The guidelines of 2017-18 issued by the IG and
Superintendent of Stamps, C.G. very clearly shows Village
Palli was an area for which determination of market price of
agricultural lands was to be done on hectare basis and not
on the basis of per square meter. It is submitted that land
acquisition was made from 9 other persons apart from the
petitioners/appellants Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria
and the compensation for their land has been determined on
hectare basis, whereas, the compensation of lands
belonging to Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria has been
determined on per square meter basis, which shows gross
irregularity committed to bestow undue favour to them as
also the conspiracy involved.
20. It is submitted that in the order passed by the competent
authority dated 12-02-2018, it is mentioned in paragraph 4
that claim of Bali Nagwanshi regarding assessment of
compensation at enhanced rate was accepted, whereas,
claim of other three claimants, namely, Paramjeet Jaswal,
Onkar Singh and Mohd. Abu Natik were rejected and then
the Commissioner by following the same guidelines has
ordered for enhancement of the compensation. Whereas,
the similarly placed other land oustees have not been
Page No.24
compensated on equal terms. Hence, it is clearly a case of
fraud, which was committed through a conspiracy hatched
between appellants Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria
and the officials involved in determination of the
compensation. It is submitted that learned Single Bench has
noticed fraud and mentioned about the same in the
impugned order.
21. It is submitted that the Collector has jurisdiction and power to
inquire into the allegations of corruption, fraud etc. There is
clear case of violation of the guidelines present and also that
the land situated in village panchayat area has been
deliberately shown to be in the municipal area, for the
purpose of benefiting only two of the land oustees, which
clearly indicates commission of offences which are required
to be inquired and accordingly inquiry has been done and
acted upon. Hence, the award dated 12-02-2018 by the
competent authority and dated 11-07-2019 by the
Commissioner are non-est and void being vitiated by fraud
and criminal conspiracy. Reliance has been placed on the
judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1,
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2005) 7 SCC 605, State of U.P. and others Vs. Ravindra
Page No.25
Kumar Sharma and others, (2016) 4 SCC 791 and
Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 215.
It is also submitted that subsequent events can be
taken into consideration by a writ Court, regarding which
reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Mahindra &
Mahindra Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 77.
It is submitted that in the peculiar circumstances of the
case, the writ is maintainable even if there exists any
alternative remedy, as has been held in the case of
Whirlpool Corpn. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8
SCC 1.
It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the writ
appeals are not fit to be entertained, therefore, the same
may be dismissed and also the interim protection granted by
learned Single Judge may be quashed.
22. Shri Prashant Bhushan learned counsel for appellant Bali
Nagwanshi submits in rebuttal, that the notification dated 02-
07-2014 is not meant only for elections. The boundaries and
areas are very clearly defined with respect to ward No.37,
Lokmanya Tilak ward. It starts from Palli Naka via
Dharampura No.2 via Shankar Mandir upto Urwasshi
Pandey's house in the North and mentions starting from
Page No.26
Shankar Mandir Narmunda via Rajat Jainti Kangoli via B.M.
cold storage upto Palli Naka. Village Palli is situated well
within this area. The land belonging to appellant Bali
Nagwanshi is adjacent to the road leading from MGM school
to Palli Naka. It is on this basis the competent authority has
calculated the compensation and enhancement of 25% was
given according to the guidelines present. Therefore, on the
basis of the notification dated 02-07-2014, it can be
assumed that land belonging to appellant Bali Nagwanshi
was urban land and the assessment was to be done in
accordance with Section 20(G) of the Act, 1989 and Section
26 of the Act, 2013, which has been done by the competent
authority and further enhancement has been granted by the
Commissioner. Therefore, the award of the compensation of
the competent authority and the Commissioner are
maintainable and lodging of the FIR against appellant Bali
Nagwanshi is baseless, which is liable to be quashed.
23. Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for appellant
Neelima Belsaria submits in rebuttal, that the notification
under Section 29 of the Act, 1961 is not limited for the
purposes of elections only. The guidelines that has been
issued by the authorities is to be strictly applied and the
same has been applied accordingly, in determining the
Page No.27
compensation. The submission of the counsel for
respondents regarding conspiracy is totally baseless. In the
report given by the Collector, the planning regarding
construction of railway station has been assailed, which
could not have been assailed by the Collector. The
notification issued under Section 20(E) of the Act, 1989 has
resulted in the vesting of acquired lands with the Central
Government, which has not been challenged by the
respondent BRPL. The diversion and transfer of project in
the matter of construction of railway station at Palli has not
affected the original acquisition plan and the construction of
railway station only is not the reason for enhancement of the
compensation amount. As the lands acquired were in the
acquisition plan from the very beginning, therefore,
conspiracy theory as propounded by the respondent BRPL
finds no support. It is submitted that the lands that were
acquired from appellant Neelima Belsaria were diverted
plots regarding which the appellant has the confirmation
from the order of the High Court in WP227 No.238/2012.
Therefore, it was fit to be assessed for compensation at
market value per square meter. Respondent BRPL has not
challenged the guidelines of 2017-18.
It is submitted, that in the report of the Collector even
the grant of 12% interest has been considered as
Page No.28
conspiracy, whereas, the appellant has entitlement of such
interest on the compensation. Reliance has been placed on
the judgment in the matter of Union of India and another
Vs. Tarsem Singh and others, AIR 2019 SC 4689. It is
submitted that Section 20(F) (vi) and (vii) of the Act, 1989,
provide for remedy against the award passed, which shall be
by way of arbitration. Respondents BRPL has challenged
the award before the Court of District Judge. Relying on the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in matter of
Pradeep Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2010 (2) SCC 114, it is
submitted that in case of concealment of fact by a party the
relief claimed can be denied by the court. It is further
submitted that the Collector had constituted inquiry
committee of officers below the rank of the persons accused,
especially the Competent Authority who held the rank of
Addl. Collector. Further, the application under Section 34 of
the Act, 1996 has also been filed with delay, which is clearly
bared by limitation as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of P. Radha Bai and others Vs. P. Ashok Kumar
and others, AIR (2018) SC 5013. Hence, there is no basis
or evidence of conspiracy present in the case. The prayer
made in the appeals filed by Neelima Belsaria are fit to be
allowed.
Page No.29
24. Shri Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel for appellant in WA
No.115/2022 submits in rebuttal, that appellant Hira Lal
Nayak passed the initial award dated 12-02-2018 and then
he was transferred. Therefore, compensation amount was
neither deposited in his tenure nor was disbursed. The
calculation of the compensation was made on the basis of
the guidelines and also on the report submitted by the office
of the Sub-Registrar. This appellant has no part in
conspiracy as alleged. The lodging of the FIR against him is
unsustainable.
25. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for appellants in
WA No.119/2022 submits in rebuttal, that railway station at
Palli was proposed by BRPL. The appellants in this appeal
had not played any part in the diversion of the railway
project. Therefore, the allegation regarding their participation
in the conspiracy is totally baseless.
26. Shri Varun Sharma, learned counsel for appellant in WA
No.144/2022 submits in rebuttal, that the appellant in this
case was working as Registration Clerk and he had
proposed the calculations for making assessment of
compensation on the basis of the guidelines of 2017-18. The
spot inspection was conducted by Sub-Registrar, Jagdalpur
Page No.30
and it was reported by letter dated 03-01-2011 to the
appellant Neelima Belsaria, that her land is situated in
municipal area of Jagdalpur. Therefore, there is no
conspiracy at all and neither any offence has been
committed in this case. Therefore, the writ appeal filed by
this appellant is fit to be allowed.
27. Mr. R.K. Mishra, learned Asst.S.G. for U.O.I. adopts the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent-
BRPL and learned State counsel and submits that all the
Writ Appeals are fit to be dismissed.
28. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record of all the Writ Appeals.
29. The appellants had challenged the report dated 30.07.2019
by the Collector, the lodging of F.I.R. dated 04.08.2019 by
Police Station, Kotwali, Jagdalpur and also the order of the
S.H.O. Police Station, Jagdalpur directing the respective
Banks to seize the bank accounts of the respective
appellants/petitioners. The learned Single Judge, framed
following questions for determination in paragraph 67 of the
impugned order / judgment:-
Page No.31
"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 State House Officer was justified in
issuing the notice dated 05.08.2019 for freezing the
bank account."
30. The learned Single Judge has held in paragraph 75 of the
impugned judgment that the role, power and jurisdiction of
the Collector cannot be curtailed under any circumstances.
The Collector upon the receiving information from any
sources whatsoever about discrepancies in the land
acquisition proceedings, was well within his authority to
order for inquiry and direct lodging of F.I.R. with respect to
commission of cognizable offences. In view of the judgment
of Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of
Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, held
Page No.32
that the report of Collector is the basis of the F.I.R. lodged
against the concerned and whatever ground taken by the
appellants/petitioners is their defence, which cannot be
adjudicated by the Writ Court.
31. Relying on the judgment in the case of Kaptan singh Vs.
State of U.P. & Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC
580 and the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State
of Odisha Vs. Pratima Mohanty, in Criminal Appeal
Nos.1455-1456/2021, decided on 11.12.2021, the learned
Single Bench has rejected the plea of the petitioners for
quashing the F.I.R. against them and held in paragraph
No.97 as follows:-
"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."
32. On the basis of the submissions of Kousal Kumar Thakur,
who is the petitioner in W.P.(Cr.) No.1096/2019 and
appellant in W.A. No.144/2022, the development in his
favour was examined and the point No.3 was decided in
Page No.33
paragraph No.100 of the impugned judgment which is as
follows:-
"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."
33. The Point No.4 regarding the authority of Station House
Officer to freeze the bank accounts was examined and by
placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs. State of Gujarat reported
in (2018) 2 SCC 372, it was held as follows in paragraph
102:
"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."
34. W.P.C No.3355/2019 was separately considered and
allowed regarding which paragraph Nos.127, 128, 129 130
and 131 are relevant, which are as follows:-
Page No.34
"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
Page No.35
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 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
Page No.36
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."
35. A point has been raised by the appellant side regarding the
maintainability of W.P.(C.) No.3355 of 2019. It was submitted
that the remedy was available under Section 34 of the Act,
1996, therefore, the award of the Competent Authority and
that of the Commissioner was not subject to challenge in the
Writ Petition. During the arguments, it has been brought to
the notice of this Court, that at a later point of time, the
respondent BRPL has preferred an application under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996, but the same has not been
registered till date and further, the application has been filed
beyond the limitation period as provided under Section 34(3)
of the Act, 1996.
36. The main contention of the respondent State, respondent-
BRPL and respondent- Union of India is this that the whole
process for determination of compensation was based on
fraud and criminal conspiracy, as out of numerous land
oustees, only two of them, namely, Bali Nagwanshi and
Page No.37
Neelima Belsariya have been benefited hugely and unjustly
in the matter of grant of compensation and enhancement in
compensation which is a windfall gain on their part. Whereas
rest of the land oustees, who were similarly situated, have
not been benefited in the similar fashion. Secondly, for the
purpose of determining compensation in favour of Bali
Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya, the land acquired from
them was considered as urban land, whereas those lands
are situated in rural area of village- Palli, which is a village
under the Gram Panchayat Kumravand. The determination
of compensation was further against the guidelines of 2017-
18. In the F.I.R. lodged, it is alleged that the Patwari-
Dharmnarayan Sahu, Revenue Inspector- Arjun Shrivastava
and Tehsildar Deen Dayal Mandavi had conspired and
manipulated the revenue records, by forging the entries for
the benefit of appellant Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima
Belsariya. There is allegation of involvement of Sub
Divisional Officer (Revenue) Siyaram Kurre, Clerk/In-charge
of Sub-registrar Office- Koushal Thakur, who provided the
calculation for compensation at the inflated rate, on which
basis the total 2.69 hectares belonging to Bali Nagwanshi
was compensated with the amount of Rs.70.6 crores,
whereas according to guidelines for rural area, the total
compensation should have been Rs.7.79 crores only and
Page No.38
similarly because of this conspiracy and on the basis
calculation at the inflated market rates, 1.04 hectare land
acquired from Neelima Belsariya was determined to be
compensated at Rs.25.19 crores, whereas according to the
guidelines for rural area, the compensation would have been
Rs.4.38 crores only. It is also alleged that the 25% additional
compensation has been granted showing the land belonging
to Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya adjacent to the
road and also of commercial importance, whereas similarly
placed other land oustees have been compensated as per
the rural criteria. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that the
calculation of the interest at the rate of 12% per annum is
illegal and against the provisions of the Act, 1989 and also
the Act, 2013.
37. There are number of allegations present in the report of the
Collector, which is the basis of the lodging of the F.I.R.,
which are directed against the assessment of compensation
made in the land acquisition process. After passing of the
award by a Competent Authority and the enhancement of
award by the Commissioner and also deposit of the
compensation amount by the BRPL, inquiry was made by
the office of the Collector, the report was submitted and on
that basis, the F.I.R. has been lodged. Consequent to this
Page No.39
development, the petitioner- BRPL in W.P.C. No.3355/2019
has raised the ground, that the award passed by the
competent authority is null and void with respect to the
respondents Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya and
others, as the award was illegally determined against the
provisions of law, against the guidelines for market price for
the year 2017-18 and that the determination of the
compensation in favour of the respective parties, who have
been illegally benefited is the result of commission of
offences regarding which, F.I.R. has been lodged.
38. The petitioner in W.P.(C.) No.3355/2019 has challenged the
award by the competent authority dated 12.02.2018 on the
ground of illegality. Same ground of illegality has been raised
in challenging the award of the Commissioner dated
11.07.2019. The main allegation being both the awards had
been the result of fraud committed by the concerned. In the
case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (Supra),
it was held by the Supreme Court that the judgment and
decree obtained by playing fraud on the court was a nullity.
In the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (Supra), it was held that "Fraud"
as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice
never dwell together. It has been similarly held in the case of
Page No.40
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
and Others (Supra) and Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana
(Supra). Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 is relevant in this
case, which is as follows:-
"Section 34(2) in THE ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT, 1996:-
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if
--
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof
that--
(i) a party was under some incapacity, or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law
to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any
indication thereon, under the law for the time being in
force; or
(iii) the party making the application was not given
proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of
the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to
present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not
contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the
submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on
matters beyond the scope of the submission to
arbitration:
Provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to
arbitration can be separated from those not so
submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which
contains decisions on matters not submitted to
arbitration may be set aside; or
Page No.41
(v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral
procedure was not in accordance with the agreement
of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict
with a provision of this Part from which the parties
cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not in
accordance with this Part; or
(b) the Court finds that--
(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of
settlement by arbitration under the law for the time
being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy
of India.
39. On a plain reading of this provision under Section 34(2) of
the Act, 1996, it is revealed that fraud and conspiracy is not
one of the grounds present for challenging an arbitral award.
It was held in the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree
Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav
Smarak Trust Vs. V.R. Rudani (Supra) in paragraph No.17
and 19, which are as follows:-
"17.There, however, the prerogative writ of mandamus
is confined only to public authorities to compel
performance of public duty. The 'public authority' for
them mean every body which is created by statute--
and whose powers and duties are defined by statue.
So Government departments, local authori- ties, police
authorities, and statutory undertakings and
Page No.42
corporations, are all 'public authorities'. But there is no
such limitation for our High Courts to issue the writ 'in
the nature of mandamus'. Article 226 confers wide
powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature
of prerogative writs. This is a striking departure from
the English law. Under Article 226, writs can be issued
to "any person or authority". It can be issued "for the
enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for
any other purpose".
40. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra
Ltd. (Supra), it is held that the High Court can always take
notice of the subsequent events and developments that
have taken place after filing of the Writ Petition etc., which is
the case present here, that the application under Section 34
of Act, 1996 has been filed by the respondent BRPL before
the District Court, but the fact remains that the same
application is clearly time-barred, therefore, the said remedy
is no longer available to the respondent BRPL. On the other
hand, it has been amply discussed here-in-above that the
fact and scenario of the present case is totally different as
the respondent BRPL is claiming that the award dated
12.02.2018 by the competent authority and the award dated
11.07.2019 by the Commissioner are non-est and void being
Page No.43
vitiated by fraud and criminal conspiracy. Therefore, in such
a case, we are of the view that the Writ Petition Civil
No.3355 of 2019 was maintainable under Article 226 of
Constitution of India.
Reliance on the judgment in SBP & Co. Vs. Patel
Engg. Ltd. (supra) and Haryana Urban Development
Authority, Karnal vs M/S. Mehta Construction Company
and another (supra) by the appellant side is distinguishable.
Similarly, the reliance of the appellant on the judgment on
the case of M/s Kelkar and Kelkar Vs. M/s Hotel Pride
Executive Pvt. Ltd in Civil Appeal No.3479/2022 decided on
4.5.2022 by the Supreme Court and the judgment of
Supreme Court in Bhaven Construction vs Executive
Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd.& another,
reported in AIR OnLine 2021 SC 6, are also distinguishable
on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove as the
alternative remedy, though available against the arbitration
award, here the challenge of the respondent side to the
same is based on the touch-stone of commission of offences
of fraud and conspiracy, therefore, the remedy under Article
226 of Constitution of India can be availed in view of the
pronouncement of Supreme Court in Andi Mukta Sadguru
(supra). As per the submissions and the facts presented, the
filing of application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was
Page No.44
done subsequent to the filing of Writ Petition(Civil)
No.3355/2019. Therefore, it cannot be said that there had
been any concealment of fact. Reliance of the appellant side
on the judgment in the case of Pradeep Singh Vs. State of
U.P. (supra) does not give any guidance in such a case.
Similarly, the judgment in the case of Union of India and
another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (supra) can also be
distinguished on the basis of the facts and circumstances
present in this case.
41. Another ground raised by the appellant side is that the
application for amendment to incorporate additional relief for
setting aside the award dated 11.07.2019 was allowed at the
final hearing stage and as the application under Section 34
of the Act, 1996 was already filed, therefore, this amendment
for additional relief was not fit to be allowed. The objection
raised by the appellant/petitioner side was not decided by
the learned Single Judge.
42. It has been discussed in detail here-in-above while
considering the question of maintainability of W.P.(C.)
No.3355/2019, that the circumstances are present permitting
the filing of the petition under Article 226 Constitution of
India. It is true that the application for amendment was filed
at a later stage and the same was decided on 29.10.2021.
Page No.45
The order of the Single Judge has mentioned about the
objections raised by the opposite counsel and the court has
after due consideration, allowed the application for
amendment. Subsequent to which, the arguments were
heard and the case was reserved for judgment on
16.11.2021 and then the judgment has been delivered on
10.01.2022. Therefore, there is no such case present that
the prayer for amendment was allowed immediately before
delivering the judgment in this case.
43. As the question of maintainability of the W.P.C.
No.3355/2019 has been decided, therefore, the objection
that there was alternative remedy present under Section 34
of the Act, 1996, is without any basis. In the case of
Whirlpool Corpn. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (Supra), it
was held by the Supreme Court in paragraph 15 as follows:-
"15.Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High
Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a
discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ
petition. But the High Court has imposed upon
itself certain restrictions on of which is that if an
effective and efficacious remedy is available, the
High Court would not normally exercise its
Page No.46
jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been
consistently held by this Court not to operate as a
bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where
the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement
of any of the Fundamental rights or where there
has been a violation of the principle of natural
justice or where the order or proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
challenged. There is a plethora of case law on this
point but to cut down this circle of fornices
whirlpool we would rely or some old decisions of
the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as
they still hold the field."
44. Section 34(2) of the Act, 1996 empowers the Court to set
aside the award passed by the arbitrator only and therefore,
this petition does not empower the Court to set aside the
initial award passed by the Acquisition Officer/Competent
Authority. Further, on the basis of the discussions made
here-in-above, we are of the view that the objection, which
was raised by the appellant side before the learned Single
Bench, has been considered and decided, therefore, this
objection raised again needs no further consideration.
Page No.47
45. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that
the notification dated 21.08.2017 issued under Section 20A
of the Railway Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act,
1989") cannot be challenged in any Court nor it can be
examined by a Criminal Court. The report of the Collector
mentions about the diversion of the project in the matter of
construction of Railway Station. The matter is merely
focused on the commission of various offences under the
penal provisions of Indian Penal Code. In case, the F.I.R.
lodged is investigated and charge-sheet is filed, the Criminal
Court shall have jurisdiction to examine the facts regarding
the commission of offences for which the charge-sheet may
be filed, therefore, there shall be no reason present to
examine the veracity of the notification issued under Section
20A of the Act, 1989. The allegations which are required to
be investigated in the case would be mainly on the method
of assessment of compensation as alleged that same was
done for the purpose benefiting specific beneficiaries only
who are the appellants. The bonafide or the lack of it shall
be found out in the investigation and, therefore, there is no
reason that the Criminal Court shall examine the notification
for acquisition of lands under Section 20A of the Act, 1996.
46. The main contention of the appellants/ petitioners is that the
Page No.48
lands acquired from the appellants, namely, Bali Nagwanshi
and Neelima Belsariya, were situated in urban area. By the
notification dated 21.8.2017, notice under Section 20A of the
Act, 1989 was issued showing the intention of the railway
authorities to acquire lands. The details of the lands, which
were to be acquired situated in village - Palli, are as
follows :-
Name of District : Bastar Name of District : Bastar
Taluka : Jagdalpur Taluka : Jagdalpur
Serial Name Khasra/ Area(in Serial Name of Khasra/ Area
Number of Plot Hect.) Number Village Plot (in
Village Number Number Hect.)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (4)
1 Palli 123/1 1.990
2 Palli 123/2 0.700
3 Palli 123/3 0.120
4 Palli 124 0.249
125/1 to
125/29, 1.040
5 Palli 125/31,
125/33 to
6 Palli 125/30 0.010
7 Palli 125/32 0.020
8 Palli 27 0.550
Total 4.679
47. The lands above mentioned in the table are shown as
situated in village - Palli and the area of the same is also
shown in the hectares. It has been vehemently argued by
the appellants side that by the notification dated 02.07.2014,
village - Palli was included in the municipal area, regarding
which, the attention of this Court has been drawn to the
Page No.49
description of Ward No.37 i.e. Lokmanya Tilak Ward. The
description of Lokmanya Tilak Ward in the schedule of
notification dated 02.07.2014 is relevant, which is as
follows :-
"Ward no.37 Lokmanya Tilak Ward
North - starting from Palli Naka via
Dharampura No.-2 via Sankar Mandir
upto Urwasshi Pandey's house.
East - starting from Devi Gudi L.I.C road
upto Champa Bai house.
South - starting from Champa's house upto
Sankar Mandir house.
West - starting from Sankar Mandir
Narmunda via Rajat Jainti Kangoli via
B.M cold storage upto Palli Naka."
48. From the description as given in the notification dated
21.08.2017, it is clearly mentioned that Palli is village area.
The emphasis of the appellants submission that the village -
Palli has been included in Lokmanya Tilak Ward is not
reflected from the description given in Notification dated
2.7.2014 regarding Ward No.37 Lokmanya Tilak Ward. The
description given for the North mentions that the ward starts
from Palli Naka but does not mention Palli village. The
description regarding East and South does not mention Palli
village and the description regarding Western area of the
Page No.50
ward also mentions of Palli Naka only and it does not make
a mention of Palli village in any respect.
49. The contention of the respondents' side is that the village-
Palli was never notified as a municipal area. Section 5A of
the Act, 1961, empowers the Governor to declare the
intention to include within or exclude from the limits of a
municipal area, any specific area by making publication of
notification. Attention of this Court was drawn to the
notification dated 03.09.2002 to submit that this notification
was the last notification for inclusion of specified area in the
municipal limits of Municipal Council Jagdalpur, which is as
under :-
"Raipur, the 3rd September 2002
NOTIFICATION
No.4719/18/2002 - In exercise of the powers conferred
under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5-A of
Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961), the State
Government, hereby, include following villages within the
limits of Municipal Council, Jagdalpur of Bastar District, from
the date of its notification in the Gazette as given in the
Schedule-I.
SCHEDULE - I
The details of the villages to be included within the
limits of Jagdalpur Municipal Council.
(1) Village Sargipal Tahsil Survey Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and
Page No.51
Jagadalpur part portion of 3/1 G, area
33.600Hec.
(2) Village Kangoli Tahsil Survey Nos.1 to 76, 80, 83 to 99,
Jagadalpur 121/1, total area 616.85 Hec.
(3) Village Dharampura Survey Nos.1 to 117, 122, 124,
Tahsil Jagdalpur 141 and 142, total area 233.758
Hec.
(4) Village Adhanpur Tahsil Survey Nos.1 to 139/1, 140 to
Jagdalpur 147, 150 to 152 and part portion
of 149/1 total area 279.989 Hec.
(5) Village Pakhanguda All Survey Nos. form 1/1 to 97/3
Tahsil Jagdalpur total area 189.567 Hec.
(6) Village Frazerpur Tahsil All Survey Nos. from 1/1 K to 27
Jagdalpur total area 118.391 Hec.
(7) Village Hatkalchora All Survey Nos. from 1/1 K to 230
Tahsil Jagdalpur total area 270.725 Hec.
(8) Village Karakapal Tahsil Survey Nos.from 1/1 to 26/1,
Jagdalpur 133/1, 133/8, 135/1, 134/1 total
area 54.875 Hec.
(9) Village Kohakapal Tahsil All Survey Nos. from 1/2 to 95
Jagdalpur total area 75.015 Hec.
(10) Village Asna Tahsil Survey Nos. from 266/330 to
Jagdalpur 628/1 total area 260.468 Hec.
(11) Village Jagdalpur Khas All Survey Nos. from 1 to 146/35
Tahsil Jagdalpur total area 189.344 Hec.
50. This notification certainly does not include village - Palli
within the municipal area. The appellants' side have not
brought to the notice of this Court about any other
notification under Section 5-A of the Act, 1961, showing the
inclusion of village Palli in the municipal area. The
arguments of the appellants' side, that the notification dated
02.07.2014 issued under Section 29 of the Act, 1961 shows
village- Palli in municipal area is not borne out by the
description given with respect to Ward No.37 i.e. Lokmanya
Tilak Ward Jagdalpur. Submissions have been made by the
appellants' side that the notification under Section 29 of the
Page No.52
Act, 1961 provides for extension of the ward constituted for
each municipality has the effect of including the specified
area mentioned in the municipal area.
51. The municipal area has been defined under Section 3(18)
(a) of the Act, 1961, which is as follows :-
"Section 3 (18-a) - "Municipal area" means
the smaller urban area or the transitional area,
as the Governor may, by public notification,
specify, in accordance with the provisions laid
down in Section 5 of this Act;"
52. This provision makes reference to only Section 5 of the Act,
1961 and further Section 5-A of the Act, 1961 has been
brought by amendment of 1994. The definition of municipal
area does not mention of Section 29 of the Act, 1961.
Section 29 of the Act, 1961 is as under :-
[29.Determination of number and extent of
wards and conduct of elections.-(1) The State
Government shall from time to time, by
notification in the Official Gazette, determine the
number and extent of wards to be constituted
for each Municipality :
Provided that the total number of wards
shall not be more than forty and not less than
fifteen.
(2) Only one Councillor shall be elected from
each ward.
Page No.53
(3) The formation of the wards shall be made
in such a way that the population of each of the
wards shall, so far as practicable be the same
throughout the Municipal area and the area
included in the ward is compact.
(4) As soon as the formation of wards of a
Municipallity is completed, the same shall be
reported by the State Government to the State
Election Commission.
(5) 1[* * *]
(6) 1[* * *].
53. It is not relevant to discuss or interpret Section 29 of the Act,
1961 as this Court has already come to a conclusion that
inclusion of village- Palli is not specifically mentioned in the
notification dated 02.07.2014, which was notified under
Section 29 of the Act, 1961 and further, it was not included in
the notification of 03.09.2002. No such other notification has
been brought to the notice of this Court. As has been
submitted by learned counsel for the respondents' side that,
Palli Naka should not be identified as Palli village. It is
observed that Palli Naka is a particular point for crossing on
the road having a barrier and therefore, Palli Naka can not
be referred to as Palli village in any respect.
54. Section 6 of the Act, 1961 provides for publication of
notification under Section 5 or Section 5-A of the Act, 1961.
Page No.54
Section 7 of the Act, 1961 provides that after the
establishment of municipal area and inclusion of a
panchayat area, such specified area shall cease to exist in
the panchayat area.
55. Respondents' side has referred to notification dated
02.07.2014, which is a notification regarding constitution of
gram panchayats. In Sr. No.23 there is mention of Gram
Panchayat- Kumrawand, which includes villages
Kumrawand and Palli. The relevant extract is as follows :-
**dk;kZy;] dysDVj] ftyk cLrj ¼NRrhlx<½
cLrj] fnukad 21 tqykbZ 2014
vf/klwpuk
[email protected]@iapk;[email protected]&15& NRRkhlx< 'kklu] iapk;r ,oa
xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk dzekad ,Q &1&11& 95&
22& ia &02] fnukad 23 Qjojh 1999 Onkjk iznRRk 'kfDr;ksa dks
iz;ksx esa ykrs gq,]NRrhlx< iapk;r jkt vf/kfu;e 1993¼dzekad
1 lu~ 1994½ ¼ftls blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS ½
dh /kkjk 129 [k ¼ 1 ½ ds izko/kkuksa ds v/khu esa vafdr
vkuan]dysDVj] ftyk cLrj layXu lkj.kh ¼ ftls]blds i'pkr~
Slkj.kh S dgk x;k gS ½ ds LrkaHk ¼ 4 ½ esa n'kkZ;s x;s xkao ;k xkaoksa
ds leqg ds fy, ftldh tula[;k lkj.kh ds LraHk ¼ 5 ½ esa
n'kkZ;h xbZ gS]lkj.kh ds LraHk¼ 3 ½ esa mYysf[kr uke ls mDr
vf/kfu;e ds iz;sktuksa ds fy, Sxzke Sds :i es fofufnZ"V djrk
gWWw rFkk lkoZtfud tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~ Onkjk izdkf'kr fd;k
tkrk gSA
bl LFkkfir xzke esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 8 ¼ d ½ ds
vuqlkj xzke iapk;r dk xBu fd;k tk;sxk]bl izdkj xfBr xzke
iapk;rksa dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 ds varxZr of.kZr vf/kfu;e ds
iz;kstu ds fy, vko';d vU; leLr 'kfDr;ka izkIr gksaxh-
Page No.55
Sr. No.23 is as follows :-
;ksx 1530
56. Although this notification does not mention the lands
included in the panchayat area but inclusion of village - Palli
in the panchayat area is sufficient to reflect that the village-
Palli continues as a village in the gram panchayat
Kumrawand. It is the submission of the respondents' side
that the respective lands that were purchased by the
appellants/petitioners are shown as agricultural lands in the
respective sale deeds and their areas were mentioned in
hectares, which had not been denied by the appellants' side.
57. In the guidelines issued by the Office of Inspector General of
Registrar and Superintendent (Stamp), Raipur for the year
2017-18, market price is mentioned with respect to Ward
No.37, which is as follows :-
izk:i &,d
¼fu;e&7 nsf[k;s½
uxjh; laifRr;ksa ds cktkj ewY; ekxZnf'kZd fl)kar o"kZ 2017&2018
uxj ikfyd fuxe&txnyiqj
¼nj izfroxZehVj :i;s esa½
dz0 okMZ dk [email protected]@lkslk;[email protected] dk uke Hkw[k.M dk ewY;
uke ,oa
dzekad laifRr eq[; ekxZ laifRr eq[; ekxZ
ij fLFkr gksus dh ls vanj gksus ij
fLFkfr esa 20 ehVj nj ¼ftlesa eq[;
rd nj ekxZ ls 20 ehVj
i'pkr dh nj
Hkh lfEefyr gSa
37 yksd ekU; 1- ,e-th-,e- Ldwy tkus dk jkLrk ls iYyh ukdk rd 13800 ----
fryd 2- iYyh ukdk ls fxV~Vh [knku rd 6000 8500
okMZ dzekad 3- v'kksdk ykbZQ [email protected]'kh [email protected] --- 11300
Page No.56
37 Lianu ¼iYyh½
4- x.ks'k pkSd ls jk;y xkMZu rd ¼ukxoa'kh jslhMsalh½ 7300 5400
5- x.ks'k pkSd ls fxV~Vh [knku tkus okyh jksM rd 7100 5300
58. There is mention of "Nagwanshi Residency" and "Neelima
Spandan", regarding which, the appellants have their claims.
However, these properties are shown to be present beyond
20 meters from the road.
59. Further in the same guidelines under Format -III, there is
mention of village- Palli in Revenue Inspector Circle
Jagadalpur. The relevant entry at Sr.No.2 is as follows :-
izk:i &rhu
¼fu;e&7 nsf[k;s½
d`f"k Hkwfe ds fy;s cktkj ewY; ekxZnf'kZd fl)kar o"kZ 2017&2018
rglhy&txnyiqj ftyk & cLrj
¼nj izfr gsDVs;j esa½
i- xzke dk uke lHkh fdLe flafpr vflafpr d`f"k Hkwfe ds VqdMs+
g- eq[; ekxZ ij 500 oxZehVj rd
ua- fLFkr
lM+d ls 20 lM+d ls 20
ehVj rd ehVj ckn
1 -------------------- --------------- ----------- ------------- -------------- ----------------
2 ?kkVinewj 4795500 3294000 3212 2188
dqEgjkoaM 5061000 3294000 2891 2188
iYyh 5061000 3294000 2891 2188
60. On a minute perusal of the order dated 12.02.2018, given by
the Competent Authority, there appears to be no mention
that land that was acquired from the appellants Bali
Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria were within that the Ward
Page No.57
No.37 of the Jagdalpur Municipal Corporation and that the
lands were not situated in the rural area of village - Palli.
61. The notification under Section 20A of the Act, 1989 dated
21.08.2017 mentions the description of lands, situated at
village- Palli, regarding which, the intention for acquisition
was notified. After the publication of this notification in the
local news paper, the persons concerned have the liberty to
raise objection as provided under Section 20D of the Act,
1989, which was to be made within 30 days from the date of
publication under Section 20A of the Act, 1989. Sub-section
2 of Section 20-D of the Act, 1989 provides that the
Competent Authority shall give an opportunity of hearing to
the objector and to make an inquiry as may be necessary
and either allow or disallow the objections. Thereafter,
notification under Section 20-E of the Act, 1989 is to be
issued. The notification under Section 20E of the Act, 1989
was issued on 21.12.2017. The relevant part of this
notification is reproduced as under :-
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(Railway Board)
NOTIFICATION
Bilaspur, the 21st December, 2017
Notification under Section 20E of the
Railways Act, 1989
S.O.3000(E.) - Whereas by the notification of
Page No.58
the Gov. of India, In the Ministry of Railways
(Railway Board) number S.O.2856 (E),
published in the Gazette of India (Extra-
Ordinary) on dt.31.08.2017 Part-II section 3,
sub section (ii), herein after referred to as the
said notification under subsection (1) of 20A of
the Railway Act,1989 (24 of 1989) (hereinafter
referred to as the said Act), the central
Government declared its intention to acquire
the land specified in the schedule annexed to
the said notification for execution of special
Railway Project, namely Rowghat-Jagdalpur
(140 km.) of Dallirajhara-Jagdalpur in the state
of Chhattisgarh.
And, whereas the substance of the said
notification was published in the daily
Newspapers, Nava Bharat (Hindi) Bastar
Edition on 23.09.2017, and Dandakaranya
Samachar (Hindi) dt.24.09.2017 under
subsection (4) of section 20A of the said act.
And whereas, there are four objections
received within the set time period & all were
rejected by the Competent Authority.
And, whereas, in pursuance of subsection
(1) of section 20E of the said act, the
Competent Authority has submitted his report to
the central Government;Now,therefore,upon
receipt of the said report of the Competent
Authority, and in exercise of the powers
conferred by subsection (1) of the section 20E
of the said act 1989, the central Government
hereby declares that the lands specified in the
Page No.59
schedule annexed here to shall be acquired for
the aforesaid purpose;
And, further, in pursuance of subsection
(2) of section 20E of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that on
publication of this notification in the official
Gazette, the land specified in the Schedule
annexed here to shall vest absolutely in the
Central Government free from all
encumbrances.
Relevant entries in Sr. No. 1, 2 and 5 of the notification
are as under :-
SCHEDULE
Name of District: Bastar
Taluka: Jagdalpur
Serial Name of Khasra Area (in Type Nature of Name of Land Owner
No. Village /Plot Hect.) of land
Numbe Land
r
1. Palli 123/1 1.990 Pvt. Fallow Bali Nag Vanshi Father
Land Buter Nagvanshi Caste
Hulba
2. Palli 123/2 0.700 Pvt. Fallow Bali Nag Vanshi Father
Land Buter Nagvanshi Caste
Hulba
3. - - - - - -
4. - - - - - -
5. Palli 125/1 1.040 Pvt. Fallow Shirmati Neelima Father
to Land Pillu Ram, Bell Saria
125/29, Husband T.K. Ravi
125/31, Caste Hulba
to
62. It goes to show, that after the notification of intention to
acquire the lands, the appellants/petitioners did not raise any
Page No.60
such objection that the lands proposed to be acquired from
them was not a land situated in the rural area and that the
same was situated in the urban area under the limits of the
municipal corporation/council. Therefore, the notification
under Section 20E of the Act, 1989 mentions about the lands
acquired from the appellants Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima
Belsaria as agricultural land with description that the lands
acquired were fallow lands.
63. Section 20F of the Act, 1989 provides for
determination of compensation amount, in which after
publication of notification, under sub-section (4) of 20F of the
Act, 1989, the interested party may appear and under sub-
section (5) of Section 20F of the Act, 1989, he may make a
statement regarding the nature of his respective interest in
such lands, and not regarding the market valuation of the
acquired property, as it is the duty of the competent authority
to determine the compensation in accordance with Section
20F (8) of the Act, 1989 taking into consideration the market
value. Here the case is quite different. The respective
notifications and the documents show that village Palli were
never included in the municipal area under any notification
issued under Section 5A of the Act, 1989. The claim of the
appellant- Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria is that the
Page No.61
land shown in the guidelines by 2017-18 i.e. "Nagwanshi
Residency" and "Neelima Spandan" were subject to
acquisition. On the contrary, the notification under Section
20A of the Act, 1989 and then the notification under Section
20E of the Act, 1989, make a clear mention of the lands
acquired from the village- Palli, which are shown to be fallow
lands, without there being presence of any construction on
the same. The report of the Collector dated 30.07.2019,
which is filed as Annexure P-10 (in W.P.(C) No. 3355 of
2019), mentions that seven persons were the land oustees
from village - Palli and the total compensation determined
was Rs. 99.07 Crores, out of which only two of the lands
oustees, who are the appellants Bali Nagwanshi and
Neelima Belsaria, have received Rs.95.82 Crores out of the
total amount. There is allegation of serious irregularities
committed in determination of compensation with specific
mention, that the land acquired from the appellants Bali
Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria were lands situated in
village area. This enquiry was conducted by a committee of
three members, constituted by the Collector, Jagdalpur, who
also happen to be the members of the revenue department
and the report given by them has relevance alongwith other
facts, which support the conclusion/ ground in this report
which has been described herein above. Therefore, the
Page No.62
conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order in favour of the report submitted by the
Collector does not appear to suffer from any kind of infirmity.
64. The grounds raised by the appellant - Hiralal Nayak in W.A.
No. 115 of 2022, by the appellant - Siyaram Kurre in W.A.
No. 129 of 2022, and by the appellant - Koushal Kumar
Thakur in W.A. No. 144 of 2022, are that they performed
their duties in exercise of power vested in them. The
compensation was determined by the competent authority in
accordance with the documents provided to him and the
calculation sheet was provided by the registration clerk -
Koushal Kumar Thakur in accordance with the guidelines of
2017-2018. It has also been contended that the appellant -
Hiralal Nayak passed the award dated 12.02.2018,
subsequent to which, he was transferred. No amount of
compensation was deposited during his tenure. Appellant -
Siyaram Kurre was the then S.D.O. (Revenue), the appellant
- Dindayal Mandavi was the then Tahsildar, appellant -
Arjun Shrivastava was the then Revenue Inspector and
appellant - Dharam Narayan Sahu was the then Halka
Patwari and their submission is that they have performed
their duties lawfully.
Page No.63
65. Section 186 of the Act, 1989 provides for immunity to the
Railway Administration or Railway Servant or any other
person from any civil action or criminal action, provided, that
the action of such administration or public servant was done
in good faith. The point of good faith is required to be
investigated and it is only after that the conclusion can be
drawn whether the action of the public servant concerned
was done in good faith on a lawful exercise of the duty. As
there are several allegations present regarding the
conspiracy and fraud, therefore, these allegations are
required to be investigated before drawing any conclusion
whether the act done by the public servant was done in good
faith or not and whether the public servant has the immunity
under Section 186 of the Act, 1989 ?
66. In the inquiry report submitted and the report of the Collector
dated 30.07.2019, there are specific details of irregularities
committed and responsibility fastened. Firstly, it is reported
that the Patwari - Dharam Narayan Sahu manipulated the
revenue records showing the land of Neelima Belsaria and
Bali Nagwanshi as separate khatas, whereas earlier the
revenue record was showing the lands in joint khata with
others. Incharge Sub-Registrar, Koushal Kumar Thakur had
first submitted a report on 30.01.2018 showing the lands of
Page No.64
the appellants Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria in one
khata. Subsequent to which, the second report has been
submitted on 31.01.2018 showing the lands of these
appellants in separate khatas. It is alleged that the Revenue
Inspector - Arjun Shrivastava, Dindayal Mandavi and
Siyaram Kurre, connived in the submission of the report. The
calculation sheet was provided by the In-charge Sub-
Registrar Koushal Kumar Thakur, and based on the same
compensation has been assessed in favour of the appellants
Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria. The responsibility of
appellant - Hiralal Nayak has been fixed on this point, that
he also connived with the submission of report by the other
officials and did not consider, that only two land oustees are
receiving huge compensation as compared to the other land
oustees and it is on this basis, criminal liability has been
imposed upon these appellants, regarding which, FIR has
been lodged. The grounds on which the appellants are
placing reliance needs to be investigated. The writ Court or
this appellate Court can not go into the details of the
accusation and grounds that are present or the grounds that
have been raised by the appellants in their defence. The
learned Single Bench has rightly held that the grounds and
the defence of these appellants can not be adjudicated by
this Court and further the FIR lodged requires to be
Page No.65
investigated and truth will be revealed during the
investigation. Hence for these reasons, we are of the view
that the grounds raised by these appellants are not fit to be
considered by the writ Court and similarly are not fit to be
considered in these writ appeals.
67. The contentions of the appellant - Suresh B. Matali and A.V.
R. Murty, the appellants in W.A. No.119 of 2022 that they
have no involvement in the alleged commission of offence is
taken into consideration. It is true that these appellants had
not been involved in the process of acquisition in
determination of compensation. In the report of the Collector
dated 30.07.2019, it is reported, that the responsibility of
survey determination of rail track and construction was given
to the IRCON. IRCON is one of the partners in joint venture
with National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC),
Steel Authority of India (SAIL) and Chhattisgarh Mineral
Development Corporation (CMDC). It is alleged in the report,
that IRCON made a survey for diversion of project proposing
construction of railway station at village - Palli, as a result of
which, excess land was acquired and such lands were
acquired because of which, the burden of payment of
compensation was enhanced and therefore, the lands of the
village- Palli were acquired, leading to the discrepancy in
Page No.66
determining huge compensation and also in determining
compensation in favour of the appellants Bali Nagwanshi
and Neelima Belsaria in different manner, compared to the
compensation determined for the other land oustees. In this
case, the land acquisition procedure has taken place only
once, for which, notification dated 21.08.2017 under Section
20A of the Act, 1989 was published showing the intention of
the railway authorities to acquire the lands. This notification
included the lands belonging to the appellants - Bali
Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria. Subsequent to that, the
notification under Section 20E, which was published on
21.12.2017 for making acquisition of the lands, in which, the
acquisition of the lands proposed in notification under
Section 20A, was finalized. Hence, it is not a case that any
additional acquisition of lands has taken place at any later
point of time. The lands in question were already there in
acquisition plan, since the very beginning.
68. Now the question is whether diversion of project in the
matter of construction of railway station at village Palli is one
of the reasons for determining enhanced compensation in
favour of the land oustees. In our view, when the lands
acquired were already in the construction plan of the special
railway project, change in plan and construction of railway
Page No.67
station at village - Palli or any diversion without there being
any additional acquisition for the same, does not affect the
determination of compensation in any manner because the
compensation is to be determined in accordance with the
guidelines 2017-18 issued by the Inspector General and
Superintendent (Stamp), Raipur, which prescribes for grant
of compensation according to the market price of the land
only and not on the ground of any other importance, for
example, construction of railway station.
69. On close scrutiny of the award dated 12.02.2018 passed by
the competent authority, there appears to be no mention
regarding the construction of railway station at village- Palli
and also regarding determination of compensation on this
basis, that railway station is to be constructed at village Palli.
Similarly, the order of Commissioner (Arbitrator) dated
11.07.2019 also does not mention any such ground for
enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant Bali
Nagwanshi and the order has been similarly passed in the
arbitration matter referred by the appellant - Neelima
Belsaria on 11.07.2019. On the contrary, it appears that the
grounds for determination of compensation had been only
the market price of the lands, which has been classified as
agricultural land, land of commercial value, land adjacent to
Page No.68
the road, urban land and rural land, which are the only
criteria prescribed in the guideline of 2017-18. Therefore, we
are of the view, that in the report of the Collector, an
erroneous conclusion has been drawn regarding the
involvement of Suresh B. Matali and others, the appellants in
W.A. No. 119 of 2022 holding that their action in the matter
of survey of railway lands etc. has been the reason of
erroneous determination of compensation in favour of the
appellants - Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsaria. The
diversion of railway project, if any, has taken place, in that
case also the structure of the compensation, which was to
be determined in accordance with the guidelines of 2017-18,
could not have changed. On the other hand, the main
contention in the report of the Collector dated 30.07.2019
and the FIR lodged dated 04.08.2019 is only to this extent
that the lands belonging to the appellants Bali Nagwanshi
and Neelima Belsaria were assessed for compensation on
the basis of their being urban land, being situated within the
municipal limits of Jagdalpur and also being situated
adjacent to the road, which is subject for investigation in the
FIR lodged. Hence, we are of the view that involvement of
these appellants in the FIR as accused persons is baseless.
Hence, their prayer for quashing of FIR against them is fit to
be allowed.
Page No.69
70. It had been the submission of the appellants' side that the
Collector had no authority to make an inquiry into the
acquisition process for the railway project as there is no
such provision present in the Act, 1989. In this matter, the
Collector has not enquired into the acquisition process. The
inquiry has been conducted with respect to the erroneous
determination of compensation, regarding which, the report
has been submitted and it was on the basis of this report,
the FIR has been lodged. Section 39 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure provides that every person aware of commission
of any offence punishable under the provisions of IPC
specified in the section is duty bound to give information to
the nearest Magistrate or Police Officer. The offence under
Section 409 is included in this provision.
71. Section 154 of Cr.P.C. provides that information which
discloses commission of cognizable offence, can be given to
the police station in the manner provided therein. Hence, on
the basis of these provisions in Criminal Procedure Code
and also the Collector being the administrative head of
revenue district, has the responsibility to see that the rule of
law prevails and he is duty bound to take cognizance
whenever there is some information regarding commission
Page No.70
of offence. Although the cognizance was taken by the
Collector on the basis of the news publication, but the
Collector did not proceed to lodge FIR only on that basis. An
enquiry was conducted by a team constituted by the
Collector and on the submission of report of the inquiry by
the said Committee, the action has been taken for lodging of
FIR in this case. There is no such restriction under the
provisions of the Act, 1989 and further, the inquiry report can
not be said to be against the railway authorities or against
the railway project. The report mentions about the diversion
of railway project, regarding which, suspicion has been
raised, which has been dealt with here-in-above. Therefore,
we are of the view that the Collector has ordered for enquiry
well within his authority and hence, the enquiry report dated
30.07.2019 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
72. In conclusion, we are of the view that W.A. No. 81 of 2022,
W.A. 64 of 2022, W.A.77 of 2022, W.A. 83 of 2022, W.A. 115
of 2022, W.A.129 of 2022 and W.A.144 of 2022 are not fit to
be allowed. Hence, they are dismissed.
73. However, the W.A. No. 119 of 2022 is fit to be allowed, which
is allowed and the FIR dated 04.08.2019 under Crime No.
409 of 2019 to the extent, lodged against the appellants
Page No.71
Suresh B. Matali and A.V.R. Murty are hereby quashed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (R.C.S. Samant)
Chief Justice Judge
Nisha/Aadil/Monika/
Nirmala/Balram
