PATNA HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON ABDUL WAHAB ANSARI V/S THE STATE OF BIHAR

PATNA, India, Sept. 29 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 29:

Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. Mayank Raj and Mr. Rahul Singh, the learned Advocate as also Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present application has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the First Information Report of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 455 of 2016, dated 10.12.2016, which was registered for the offences under Sections 166, 167, 420, 421, 466, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present application is to the effect that one Santosh Kumar Srivastava, the then Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, gave a written complaint before the Officer-InCharge of Gandhi Maidan Police Station for launching prosecution alleging therein that an FIR be lodged against the Government Officer for passing orders for payment of compensation with regard to land in Village-Jujharpur, measuring 0.8 acres of land, which was acquired for the purposes of scheme for KV Grid Sub-Centre as per the Land Acquisition Case No. 07/2008-09.

4. It was alleged that the case be lodged immediately for payment of compensation which was done by Shri Abdul Wahab Ansari (the petitioner), who was the then Land Acquisition Officer, Patna since transferred.

5. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the present FIR is misconceived and the petitioner had not committed any offence and he has been made an accused in this case in pursuance of the order dated 04.04.2013 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. N. 17550 of 2012, wherein the main grievance of the writ petitioner was that compensation was wrongly paid to Shivpuran Rai and Shivlal Rai, who were nephews of the writ petitioner.

6. It has been submitted that in the Land Acquisition Case No. 07/2008-09, which was acquired for the purposes of establishment of KV Grid Sub-Centre in a particular village, out of total area of 0.32 acres of land, compensation with regard to 0.16 acres of land to the tune of 80% was paid to one Nageshwar Rai pursuant to the order passed by this petitioner, the then Land Acquisition Officer, on 09.09.2010. Subsequently, vide order dated 05.03.2012, the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 of the aforesaid writ petition were also paid 80% compensation for their respective shares, i.e., 0.8 acres.

7. The case of the writ petitioner, namely, Nageshwar Rai, was that he wanted the entire compensation with regard to the total land, i.e., 0.32 acres of land and as such, the respondents in the writ petition, viz., Shivpujan Rai and Shivlal Rai, had filed a complaint/objection before the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e., the present petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, had passed the order for payment of 80% of compensation to them and rest of the amount was kept pending on account of one case being pending before the L.R.D.C.

8. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it was on the petition filed by aforesaid Shivpujan Rai and Shivlal Rai, in proper format, that the petitioner being the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting an enquiry by the Amin and the Kanoongo, passed the order of payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,37,363.85/- for both the claimants and cheques were handed-over to them.

9. It has further been submitted that the two persons, namely, Shivpujan Rai and Shivlal Rai, by concealing the fact of Mutation Case No. 488/3/2009-10, had wrongly claimed their shares over 0.8 acres of land. As a result thereto, wrong compensation was paid to them. It has also been submitted that it was on account of the pressure being put by this Hon'ble Court in the writ petition that respondent authorities have taken action of lodging an FIR against the then Land Acquisition Officer, i.e., the petitioner. However, from the perusal of the FIR, it has been submitted, it would be evident that it was a wrong order being passed by the petitioner due to suppression of facts by the claimants and as such, the FIR was misconceived.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMyOTc0IzIwMjMjMSNO-ZGUVPBUyfCw=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.