B.S. Sundari & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 8563 of 1994
Petitioner: B.S. Sundari & Ors.
Respondent: State of Tamil Nadu
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 8563 of 1994
Judges: A.P. MISRA & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 13, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944
Section 13(3) with Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120-B, 409 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Section 5 – Acquisition of land – Govt. officials and land owners found to have obtained collusive awards – Compensation amount inflated – Two brothers also convicted – One of them acquitted – Appeal against acquittal – Dismissal, but Court observing that the two brothers had taken excess compensation – Petition for forfeiture filed and property attached – Acquitted brother moving for release on ground of partition – Authorities finally proceeding to attach 53% of property. Held that there is no fault in this order. Time granted to deposit amount of 53% of excess amount. (Paras 4 to 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in writ appeal by the High Court confirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 867/81. The writ petition was filed impugning the order of for-feiture passed under Section 13(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 33 of 1944. It is not in dispute, the original petitioner was convicted for an offence connected with obtaining excessive compensation in land acquisition proceedings. It is also not in dispute that the offences were covered by the Schedule by the aforesaid ordinance. There was an interim attachment of the property which was made abso-lute. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against this order of attachment. However, an appeal was preferred against the order of conviction was dismissed by the High Court.
2. It is thereafter, application for forfeituring of property was filed by the respondent which led to the passing of the impugned order of forfeiture. In order to appreciate the controversy we are herewith giving some essential facts. There was land acquisition proceeding in respect of atomic power project of Kalpakkam for acquiring 226 acres of land at Pudupattinam Village in Chingleput District in which compensation was awarded. Thereafter a complaint was made by the Secretary of the Govern-ment of Tamil Nadu that officials of the State Government in charge of the land acquisition had entered into criminal conspir-acy with the land owners and inflated the compensation amount and obtained collusive awards. This complaint was investigated in which 7 persons including Tehsildar and land owners were charged for offence under Section120B read with Section 409 IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The original petitioner was the 6th accused along with the brother who was the accused who were the owners of the property in question. After criminal trial, accused no. 6 was found guilty of the aforesaid charges and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. Howev-er, his brother, accused no. 7 was acquitted. An appeal preferred by accused no. 6 was dismissed while the appeal of the State against the acquittal of accused no. 7 was also dismissed. While disposing of this appeal, Court found under Section 12 of the aforesaid Ordinance, accused nos. 6 and 7 had procured the sum of Rs. 5,99,146.43p. as excess compensation. It is during the pendency of this criminal case Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department filed the said petition for forfeiture on the 22nd January, 1979. After the disposal of the said criminal appeal, the State also filed a writ petition for quashing the award which was alleged to have been obtained by fraud and collusion. However, when the matter was under consideration, the State withdrew the writ petition seeking leave to file a suit for the recovery of the amount due which was granted which led to the filing of the suit by the State Government.
3. It is also relevant to mention here that as accused no. 7, namely, brother of the original petitioner was acquitted, so he filed application in the High Court for releasing the attachment property, which the High Court ordered as such.
4. The case set up between accused nos. 6 and 7 before the Court dealing with forfeiture was partitioned between them, viz., 53% and 47% respectively, hence at the most, the concerned authority could only proceed to the extent of 53% of the claim. This stand of the original petitioner was accepted in earlier proceedings. Finally this position was upheld also by the im-pugned order dated 23rd October, 1980, forfeituring the said property the Court held:
“The result is, I direct that 53% out of the total sum of Rs. 5,99,146.43 be forfeited to the Government under Section 13 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Each party will bear his own costs.”
5. It is this forfeiture order which as aforesaid was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made by the parties, dismissed the petition. Even the writ appeal of the present appellant was dismissed against which the present appeal has been preferred.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by the authority forfeituring the property, the learned Single Judge and one passed in writ appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point any error committed by these authorities. The impugned judgments give very cogent reasons, for passing the order of forfeiture and upholding it, which does not call for interference. Thus for these reasons, the present appeal has no merits and it is dismissed.
7. At the end, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the attached property if sold by the concerned authorities, it would fetch very low price and it is his residential premises. He submits time may be granted to the appellant to deposit the amount which is to be paid in terms of the forfeiture order. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we feel it appropriate to grant this indulgence to the appellant on the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we give an opportunity to the appellant to either deposit the 53% of the total amount of Rs. 5,99,146.43 which comes to Rs. 317547.60 within a period of three months from today i.e. it should be paid by or before 30th May, 2001 or get the purchaser of the said property for purchasing the attached property for depositing the said amount out of the sale proceed. In case the appellant fails the aforesaid indulgence it shall be open to the concerned respondent-authorities to proceed to recover the said amount out of the attached property in accordance with law.
8. With the said observation the present appeal is dismissed. Costs on the parties.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in writ appeal by the High Court confirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 867/81. The writ petition was filed impugning the order of for-feiture passed under Section 13(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 33 of 1944. It is not in dispute, the original petitioner was convicted for an offence connected with obtaining excessive compensation in land acquisition proceedings. It is also not in dispute that the offences were covered by the Schedule by the aforesaid ordinance. There was an interim attachment of the property which was made abso-lute. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against this order of attachment. However, an appeal was preferred against the order of conviction was dismissed by the High Court.
2. It is thereafter, application for forfeituring of property was filed by the respondent which led to the passing of the impugned order of forfeiture. In order to appreciate the controversy we are herewith giving some essential facts. There was land acquisition proceeding in respect of atomic power project of Kalpakkam for acquiring 226 acres of land at Pudupattinam Village in Chingleput District in which compensation was awarded. Thereafter a complaint was made by the Secretary of the Govern-ment of Tamil Nadu that officials of the State Government in charge of the land acquisition had entered into criminal conspir-acy with the land owners and inflated the compensation amount and obtained collusive awards. This complaint was investigated in which 7 persons including Tehsildar and land owners were charged for offence under Section120B read with Section 409 IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The original petitioner was the 6th accused along with the brother who was the accused who were the owners of the property in question. After criminal trial, accused no. 6 was found guilty of the aforesaid charges and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. Howev-er, his brother, accused no. 7 was acquitted. An appeal preferred by accused no. 6 was dismissed while the appeal of the State against the acquittal of accused no. 7 was also dismissed. While disposing of this appeal, Court found under Section 12 of the aforesaid Ordinance, accused nos. 6 and 7 had procured the sum of Rs. 5,99,146.43p. as excess compensation. It is during the pendency of this criminal case Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department filed the said petition for forfeiture on the 22nd January, 1979. After the disposal of the said criminal appeal, the State also filed a writ petition for quashing the award which was alleged to have been obtained by fraud and collusion. However, when the matter was under consideration, the State withdrew the writ petition seeking leave to file a suit for the recovery of the amount due which was granted which led to the filing of the suit by the State Government.
3. It is also relevant to mention here that as accused no. 7, namely, brother of the original petitioner was acquitted, so he filed application in the High Court for releasing the attachment property, which the High Court ordered as such.
4. The case set up between accused nos. 6 and 7 before the Court dealing with forfeiture was partitioned between them, viz., 53% and 47% respectively, hence at the most, the concerned authority could only proceed to the extent of 53% of the claim. This stand of the original petitioner was accepted in earlier proceedings. Finally this position was upheld also by the im-pugned order dated 23rd October, 1980, forfeituring the said property the Court held:
“The result is, I direct that 53% out of the total sum of Rs. 5,99,146.43 be forfeited to the Government under Section 13 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Each party will bear his own costs.”
5. It is this forfeiture order which as aforesaid was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made by the parties, dismissed the petition. Even the writ appeal of the present appellant was dismissed against which the present appeal has been preferred.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by the authority forfeituring the property, the learned Single Judge and one passed in writ appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not point any error committed by these authorities. The impugned judgments give very cogent reasons, for passing the order of forfeiture and upholding it, which does not call for interference. Thus for these reasons, the present appeal has no merits and it is dismissed.
7. At the end, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the attached property if sold by the concerned authorities, it would fetch very low price and it is his residential premises. He submits time may be granted to the appellant to deposit the amount which is to be paid in terms of the forfeiture order. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we feel it appropriate to grant this indulgence to the appellant on the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we give an opportunity to the appellant to either deposit the 53% of the total amount of Rs. 5,99,146.43 which comes to Rs. 317547.60 within a period of three months from today i.e. it should be paid by or before 30th May, 2001 or get the purchaser of the said property for purchasing the attached property for depositing the said amount out of the sale proceed. In case the appellant fails the aforesaid indulgence it shall be open to the concerned respondent-authorities to proceed to recover the said amount out of the attached property in accordance with law.
8. With the said observation the present appeal is dismissed. Costs on the parties.
