Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 31 (MAN)

P. Johnson v. State of Manipur

2021-08-10

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2021
JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records in Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 on the file of the third respondent and quash the Complaint Case as well as summons dated 20.10.2018 issued by the third respondent. 2. Heard Mr. Julius Riamei, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Samarjit, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. This Court also heard the submissions of Mr. Gautam, learned junior counsel to Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel, for the fourth respondent. 3. The case of the petitioners is that for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.102 (Imphal to Moreh), lands belonging to many villagers of Lamkang Khunou village, Chandel District were acquired by way of direct purchase. For the said purpose, the second petitioner, being the Chief of Lamkang Khunou village, along with others appointed the first petitioner as the General Power of Attorney to facilitate survey, demarcation, assessment etc. of the lands and other properties of the village with specified terms and conditions. The owners of the lands have also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the second petitioner and others with specific terms and conditions. 4. Further case of the petitioners is that the State Government, through the second respondent, made payment of compensation in respect of Lamkang Khunou village and Lamkang Khunou village authority under the Chiefship of the second petitioner, to the respective claimants. While so, the fourth respondent filed a Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 before the third respondent alleging violation of human rights and the third respondent, without having jurisdiction, entertained the complaint and issued summons to the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 5. The official respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. 6. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 5. The official respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. 6. The fourth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that through bonafide mistake due to the ignorance of law instead of challenging the direct purchase system adopted by the official respondents illegally, the fourth respondent has approached the alternative forum and as such the fourth respondent desires to withdraw the Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 pending on the file of the Manipur Human Right Commission in order to challenge the illegal and irregular and connected activities relating to the direct purchase system and to enforce the relevant land acquisition matter under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 7. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the fourth respondent also stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in view of the fact that the fourth respondent filed the Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 in the capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Committee namely Lamkang Khunou Village NH-39/AH-01” Expansion/Construction Affected Compensation Committee and in the writ petition, such Committee has not been made a party by the petitioners and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The petitioners filed rejoinder stating that the fourth respondent may withdraw the Complaint Case pending on the file of the third respondent without any condition. 9. The fourth respondent filed an additional affidavit stating that earlier the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.361 of 2019 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 6.5.2019 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Chandel to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 20.03.2019 within a specified period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed on the said representation again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.517 of 2019 in which the petitioners have sought an interim order. Since the learned Single Judge of this Court has not granted any interim order, the petitioners have preferred W.A.No.43 of 2019 and the same is pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. 10. Since the learned Single Judge of this Court has not granted any interim order, the petitioners have preferred W.A.No.43 of 2019 and the same is pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. 10. In the additional affidavit, the fourth respondent also stated that because of the non-payment of 30% of the land price payable to the villagers, they approached the Human Rights Commission as they were under the impression that such deduction of money by the petitioners illegally without any valid reason was an act violating the rights of the villagers. In fact, the petitioners are directly involved in a misappropriation of the Government fund to the tune of Rs.2.00 crores and the petitioners already withdrew Rs.20 lakhs from the sale price without any authority. Since the fourth respondent does not know the legal procedure, he approached the third respondent believing that such unpaid 30% amount may be distributed to the affected land owners with the direction of the third respondent Human Rights Commission. According to the fourth respondent, the petitioners have concealed all these facts and hence, writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands. 11. It is also stated in the additional affidavit that for the illegal deduction of money from the villagers without any authority, an FIR bearing No.35(12)2018 on the file of TPL Police Station was registered on 9.12.2018 against the petitioners and others and the same is still pending. In fact, the said fact was also concealed by the petitioners in the writ petition. Therefore, even if the fourth respondent stated in his affidavit-in-opposition that he will withdraw the Complaint Case pending before the third respondent, the fourth respondent may be permitted to take liberty not to interfere with the proceedings of the Human Rights Commission as the petitioners have misused such public money for which they should be punished in accordance with law. 12. Assailing the proceedings in Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 and summons dated 20.10.2018 issued to the petitioners by the third respondent Human Rights Commission, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the third respondent, without having jurisdiction, entertained the Complaint Case filed by the fourth respondent and had issued summons dated 20.10.2018, which is ultra vires. 12. Assailing the proceedings in Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 and summons dated 20.10.2018 issued to the petitioners by the third respondent Human Rights Commission, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the third respondent, without having jurisdiction, entertained the Complaint Case filed by the fourth respondent and had issued summons dated 20.10.2018, which is ultra vires. He would submit that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code and any dispute or proceedings whatsoever are to be in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Land Acquisition Act and that the fourth respondent has no right to file the complaint before the third respondent. Further, the third respondent ought not to have issued summons to the petitioners. Therefore, both the complaint and summons issued to the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 13. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents submitted that the official respondents have acted in the land acquisition proceedings in accordance with law only and they have not violated any human rights and that by levelling false allegations, the fourth respondent has filed the complaint before the third respondent and if really, the fourth respondent or villagers are aggrieved by the action of the official respondents, they have to approach the appropriate forum and not the third respondent. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that first of all the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 was filed before the third respondent in the capacity as Vice- Chairman of the Committee, whereas the petitioners have arrayed the fourth respondent in the present writ petition in an individual capacity. Since the Committee has not been made as party respondent in the present writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent further submitted that the compensation amount for acquisition of hill land portion were collected by the second petitioner while he was Chief of Lamkang Khunou village without the knowledge and consent of the villagers of Lamkang Khunou and deducted 30% out of the total compensation amount supposed to be handed over directly to the affected villagers. He would submit that the act of the first respondent of handing over the compensation to the second petitioner herein while he was working as Chief of Lamkang Khunou village through his attorney, without the knowledge and consent of the affected villagers, is in violation of basic fundamental rights under the Constitution of India, including rights to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition as provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act and the rules framed thereunder. 16. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent then submitted that while dealing with the land acquisition matter of Lamkang Khunou village, the official respondents have committed human rights violation of the affected villagers of Lamkang Khunou for handing over the land compensation directly to the second petitioner without their knowledge and consent by way of abetment with the first petitioner, which was supposed to be directly handed over to the affected villagers. 17. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent next submitted that since the fourth respondent as Chairman of the Lamkang Khunou NH-39/AH-01 Expansion/Construction Affected Committee has approached the third respondent under the bonafide impression that acts of the official respondents are a clear case of violation of human rights by way of abetment amongst themselves in order to deprive right to avail fair compensation and transparency in the land acquisition for the said purpose, there is no necessity to quash the proceedings pending before the third respondent. 18. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 19. The grievance of the petitioners is that the fourth respondent ought not to have filed the complaint before the third respondent and the third respondent, without having jurisdiction, erroneously issued summons to the petitioners. Since the fourth respondent complained of the alleged collection of the compensation amount of the villagers of Lamkang Khunou and deduction of 30% of the compensation amount from each of the affected villagers, the fourth respondent or the Committee in which the fourth respondent is said to be a Vice-Chairman cannot maintain the complaint before the third respondent and the fact remains that the fourth respondent's remedy lies elsewhere. Therefore, the proceedings in the complaint pending on the file of the third respondent are liable to be quashed. 20. It is to be noted that initially, the fourth respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that “through bonafide mistake due to the ignorance of law instead of challenging the direct purchase system adopted in this case, the fourth respondent has approached the third respondent and the fourth respondent desire to withdraw the relevant complaint pending before the third respondent”. Subsequently, an additional affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent stating that even if the fourth respondent submitted in his affidavit-in-opposition that he intends to withdraw the complaint pending before the third respondent, the fourth respondent may be permitted to take the liberty not to interfere with the proceedings of the Human Rights Commission as the petitioners herein have misused such public money, for which they should be punished in accordance with law. 21. It appears that upon consideration of the rival contentions, the following questions arise for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint filed by the fourth respondent before the third respondent is maintainable? And (2) Whether the Civil Court is barred from entertaining cases under the land acquisition? 22. Admittedly, the third respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint qua the matter pertaining to acquisition of land under the relevant Land Acquisition Act and payment of compensation to the land owners. Similarly, in matters pertaining to land acquisition, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 23. In the instant case, the fourth respondent complained that while dealing with the land acquisition matter, the official respondents have committed human rights violation of the affected villagers of Lamkang Khunou by handing over the compensation directly to the second petitioner, without their knowledge and consent by way of abetment with the first petitioner, which was supposed to be directly handed over to the affected villagers. It is also the say of the fourth respondent that the Committee had approached the third respondent Human Rights Commission as they were under the impression that the deduction of 30% money made by the petitioners was without any valid reason and the same was an act violating the rights of the villagers. It is also the say of the fourth respondent that the Committee had approached the third respondent Human Rights Commission as they were under the impression that the deduction of 30% money made by the petitioners was without any valid reason and the same was an act violating the rights of the villagers. The said contention of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent cannot be countenanced, as if really the fourth respondent or Committee or land owners as the case may aggrieved by the action of the official respondents, they ought to have approached the appropriate forum in the manner known to law and filing complaint before the third respondent is not appropriate. 24. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that leave may be granted to the fourth respondent to take remedies and to do in accordance with law in the payment of such direct purchase of lands. 25. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fourth respondent may withdraw the complaint case filed and pending before the third respondent without any condition whatsoever. 26. Since the fourth respondent and his Committee members decided to withdraw the Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 pending before the third respondent to enforce their rights in accordance with law, there is no need to further elaborate upon the issue of direct purchase of the land by the respondent authorities and the alleged 30% deduction of the compensation by the second petitioner while he was working as Chief of Lamkang Khunou village canvassed by the fourth respondent. Moreover, the said aspect of the matter cannot be decided in this writ petition. 27. In view of the categorical statement made by the fourth respondent in his affidavit-in-opposition that the fourth respondent, on behalf of the Committee members and the interested villagers, is going to file appropriate writ petition challenging the land acquisition in question, this Court is of the view that the proceedings in Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 and summons dated 20.10.2018 issued by the third respondent are liable to be quashed as the third respondent without having jurisdiction over the matter has entertained the writ petition and issued summons to the petitioners. 28. 28. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the Complaint Case No.4 of 2018 pending on the file of the third respondent and summons dated 20.10.2018 issued thereon are set aside. The fourth respondent, if so advised, may agitate his grievance before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. 29. It is made clear that this Court has not delved into the merits of the matter qua direct purchase as alleged by the fourth respondent and disbursement of the compensation to the second petitioner and also the alleged 30% deduction made by the petitioners as entering into such factual gamut is impermissible in writ petition. 30. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their whatsapp/e-mail.