Y.K. Sabharwal JUDGMENT
K.T. Thomas, J.
Leave granted.
1. Appellant who scored substantially in a land acquisition proceeding in now facing rough weather as he is arraigned in a criminal proceeding on account of certain documents he produced as evidence. The court which granted a quantum leap in awarding compensation to the land owners later found that they had used forged documents for inveigling such a bumper gain as compensation and hence the court ordered some of the claimants to face prosecution proceedings in a criminal court. The only point now canvassed by the appellant is that the court should have heard the appellant before ordering such prosecution. The said plea raised by the appellant before the High Court was repelled as per the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal by special leave.
2. An area of 3.9 acres of land was acquired by the State Government for construction of a canal under Arunwati Project in 1985. The land acquisition officer awarded a total of Rs. 24,000/- as compensation for the entire land. As the owners were not satisfied with the said award they moved for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court (which is a civil court) on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties made a big leap by enhancing the compensation amount from Rupees twenty four thousand to Rupees ten lakh thirty thousand, besides the other benefits such as solatium, additional compensation and interest as provided in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court passed the award granting the said enhancement on 23.4.1993. Appellant was one of the beneficiaries of the said award and the enhancement was made on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties including the appellant. Though the claimants expressed dissatisfaction even with such enhancement and moved the High Court for further enhancement the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by them in 1993.
3. In 1995, some persons of the locality brought to the notice of the reference court that the claimants had wangled a whopping enhancement after playing chicanery on the court by producing forged copies of sale deeds for supporting their claim for enhancement. The documents marked by the reference court as Exts. 31, 32 and 35 were fabricated copies of sale deeds in which the extent of the lands sold had been shown as far less than the real area transferred as per the instruments of sale, according to those persons.
4. The reference court conducted an inquiry on being told by the aforesaid applicants that the above mentioned documents are forged. The court got down the relevant records from the Sub-Registry for the purpose of examining the correctness of the aforesaid three documents and found that they were fabricated copies of the original sale deeds. The said court further found that appellant and one Rajkumar Anandrao Gulhane have committed offences affecting........