2009 (8) TMI 1257 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of vested remaindermen to notice of acquisition.
2. Legality of the High Court's direction to prosecute the writ petitioners and private respondents.

Summary:

1. Entitlement of Vested Remaindermen to Notice of Acquisition:
The primary issue was whether vested remaindermen of acquired lands were entitled to notice of acquisition, even if their names were not entered in the revenue records. The Supreme Court clarified that the Collector is required to issue individual notices to persons known or believed to be interested in the acquired land, which refers to persons whose names are recorded in the revenue records. The Court emphasized that there is no obligation on the part of the Collector to issue notices to persons whose names are not entered in the revenue records. The vested remaindermen, although persons interested, do not have a right to notice if their names are not recorded. Their rights in regard to compensation are protected by provisions for apportionment and referral of disputes to civil court.

2. Legality of the High Court's Direction to Prosecute the Writ Petitioners and Private Respondents:
The second issue was whether the High Court could have directed the prosecution of the writ petitioners and private respondents. The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's decision on a legal ground, holding that only those whose names are entered in the revenue records are entitled to notice. The Division Bench inferred that the vested remaindermen should have had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings due to their close relationship with those served notices. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence of fraud or false claims by the writ petitioners and private respondents. The Court criticized the Division Bench for ordering prosecution without any investigation or enquiry, emphasizing that criminal law cannot be set into motion casually. The Supreme Court highlighted that raising a legal contention in a writ petition does not constitute fraud. Consequently, the direction to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellants and respondents 3 to 18 was deemed wholly unwarranted and was set aside.