Land acquisition notice must reach recorded interested persons; criminal prosecution for fraud needs clear proof and proper procedure.

Individual notice in land acquisition proceedings is required for persons known or reasonably identifiable as interested from the revenue records; the Collector is not bound to conduct a roving enquiry to locate every possible vested remainderman, and omission to notify a person not recorded does not invalidate the acquisition on that ground. A direction for criminal prosecution for alleged fraud on the court can be made only where fraud or another cognizable offence is clearly established and the governing criminal procedure is followed. On the material described, the notice requirement was not extended to unrecorded vested remaindermen, while the prosecution direction was unjustified and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notice of acquisition under the applicable land acquisition law was required to be served on vested remaindermen whose names were not entered in the revenue records; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in directing criminal prosecution of the writ petitioners and other respondents for alleged fraud on the court.

Issue (i): Whether notice of acquisition under the applicable land acquisition law was required to be served on vested remaindermen whose names were not entered in the revenue records.

Analysis: The obligation to serve individual notice extended to persons known or believed to be interested in the land. Persons whose names were recorded in the revenue records as owners, holders or occupiers were entitled to notice as known interested persons. The Collector was not required to make a roving enquiry to discover every possible interested person or vested remainderman beyond the revenue records. Though persons not shown in the records may still have a claim to compensation, their omission from the notice stage did not invalidate the acquisition on that ground.

Conclusion: Notice of acquisition was not required to be served on vested remaindermen whose names were not entered in the revenue records.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in directing criminal prosecution of the writ petitioners and other respondents for alleged fraud on the court.

Analysis: A direction for prosecution can be made only in exceptional cases where fraud or another cognizable offence is clearly established. Filing a writ petition on a pure legal contention, without material showing falsehood, dishonesty or fabrication, does not by itself amount to fraud on the court. If an offence in relation to court proceedings is suspected, the procedural safeguards under the criminal law must be followed, including the requirement of a written complaint by the court where applicable. The record disclosed no basis for a prosecution direction against the petitioners or the private respondents.

Conclusion: The direction to initiate criminal prosecution was unjustified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in respect of the prosecution direction, while the ruling on notice of acquisition was affirmed against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: In acquisition proceedings, individual notice is required only to persons identifiable from the revenue records as interested, and criminal prosecution for alleged fraud on the court cannot be ordered absent clear material establishing fraud and compliance with the governing criminal procedure.

---