2009 (1) TMI 929 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Land Acquisition Officer not immune from criminal prosecution under administrative functions

Surendra Kumar Bhatia Versus Kanhaiya Lal and Ors.

The Supreme Court held that a Collector/Land Acquisition Officer making an award under the Land Acquisition Act is not entitled to immunity under Section ... - Issues Involved:1. Immunity u/s 77 IPC for a Collector/Land Acquisition Officer/Special Officer making an award.2. Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute an offence u/s 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC.Summary:Re: Question No. (i)Section 77 IPC provides immunity to a Judge acting judicially. Section 19 IPC defines a 'Judge' as one empowered by law to give a definitive judgment. The High Court held that a Collector/Land Acquisition Officer making an award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act is entitled to this immunity, reasoning that the award is akin to an executable decree and the Collector exercises judicial powers similar to a Civil Court.However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the functions of a Collector under the Land Acquisition Act are administrative, not judicial. The award by a Collector is merely an offer of compensation and does not bind the claimants, who can seek a reference to a Civil Court. The Collector acts as an agent of the Government/Acquiring Authority and not as a Judge. Therefore, the Collector is not entitled to protection u/s 77 IPC. The High Court's decision to quash the FIR on this ground was set aside.Re: Question No. (ii)The complaint involved 20 bighas of land in Khasra No. 9, which Chauthmal allegedly agreed to sell to a society. The society claimed compensation or developed land in lieu of this 20 bighas. Respondents 1 and 2 argued that their claim related to 13 bighas, not the 20 bighas in dispute. The High Court found that the FIR allegations did not pertain to the 13 bighas owned by respondents 1 and 2, and thus did not constitute an offence u/s 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC against them.The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the allegations in the FIR did not relate to respondents 1 and 2 but to others involved with the 20 bighas. However, the quashing of the FIR against the Special Officer of the Board was unwarranted, as the FIR alleged collusion between Kailash Chand and the Special Officer regarding the 20 bighas. The High Court's quashing of the FIR against the Special Officer was set aside.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed in part. The quashing of the FIR against respondents 1 and 2 was upheld, but the quashing of the FIR against the Special Officer was set aside. The FIR remains valid against other accused concerning the 20 bighas of land.