SURENDRA KUMAR BHATIA versus KANHAIYA LAL & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 30-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 774 
A 
SURENDRA KUMAR BHATIA 
v. 
KANHAIYA LAL & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2009) 
B 
JANUARY 30, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) 
+ 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 77 - Immunity under - If available 
c to the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer/Special Officer 
making an award of compensation - Held: Not available -
Only Judges acting judicially are entitled to protection under 
s. 77 - Collector is neither a Judge as defined under s. 19 nor 
does he act judicially, when discharging any of the functions 
D under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Therefore he is not 
entitled to the protection under s. 77 - Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 - s.11(2). 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of 
FIR - Allegation in FIR that owners/power of attorney holders 
E made false representation to the Housing Board for allotment 
of pattas in collusion with the Special Officer of the Board -
High Court quashed FIR on the ground that averments made 
in FIR did not make out prima facie case against them even 
if allegations were taken to be true - Held: On facts, High 
F Court rightly quashed FIR against owners/power of attorney 
holders - However quashing of FIR in respect of Special 
Officer cannot be upheld - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 4 20, 467, 
468 and 471. 
G 
One 'C' entered into an agreement to sell 20 bighas 
of land in Khasra 9 to a Society. Some lands including 
31 bighas in khasra 9 were acquired for housing scheme 
floated by Housing Board under the Land Acquisition 
Notification. In the Notification, Khasra 9 was shown as 
H 
774 
SURENDRA KUMAR BHATIA v. KANHAIYA LAL & ORS. 
775 
government land. 'C' filed declaratory suit which was 
A 
decreed. Five persons were shown as owners of Khasra 
9 in the revenue record. 
A scheme was floated by the State Government 
giving option to land owner for allotment of developed 
8 
land equal to 15% of acquired land in lieu of 
compensation for the acquired land. 
The land owners/Power of Attorney holders of 
Khasra 9 approached Board for such allotment. 'K', the 
successor of 'C', claimed allotment of developed land in 
C 
lieu of 15 bighas of acquired land. The Society also filed 
an application before the Board claiming compensation 
in respect of 20 bighas in Khasra 9 on the basis of 
agreement of sale, which was rejected. The Power of 
Attorney holders of four owners of Khasra 9 also opted 
D 
for allotment of developed land. After an inquiry, the 
Allotment Committee accepted the request and a 
settlement award was passed by the Special Officer of 
the Housing Board recording the agreement to allot 15% 
developed land in lieu of compensation in respect of 28 
E 
bighas 17 Biswas in Khasra No.9. Pattas were issued 
subsequently in regard to such allotted land. Thereafter, 
members of the Society filed a complaint before the 
Board claiming that the Society ought to have received 
the said 15% developed land in lieu of compensation 
F 
relating to the 20 bighas of acquired land. The appellant 
on behalf of the Board lodged an FIR alleging that the 
Khatedars/Power of Attorney holders of Khasra No. 9 had 
made false representations to the Board, and in collusion 
with the Special Officer of the Board and office bearers 
G 
of the society, hadJraudulently obtained allotment pattas. 
First respondent who claimed to be the owner of 13 
bighas in Khasra No.9 and respondent No. 2 who was his 
attorney holder, filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 
for quashing the FIR on the ground that the averments 
H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A made in the FIR did not make out a prima facie case 
against them, even if the allegations in the FIR were taken 
* 
to be true. High Court quashed the FIR. 
The questions which arose for consideration in these 
B appeals were whether the immunity under Section 77 IPC 
is available to a Collector/Land Acquisition Officer/ 
Special Officer who makes an award, by way of 
settlement or otherwise, under the provisions of Land 
+-
Acquisition Act, 1894 and whether the allegations in the 
c 
FIR did not constitute an offence under sections 420, 
467,468 and 471 IPC. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 77 IPC provides that nothing is 
D an offence which is done by a Judge when acting 
judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which 
.. 
in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law. 
Section 19 IPC defines a 'Judge' as denoting not only 
every person who is officially

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.