S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM & ORS.versusDISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU & ORS.

                   [2009] 12 S.C.R. 1215


             S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM & ORS.                            A
                               v.
 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU &
                         ORS.
           (Civil Appeal No. 5743 of 2009)
                                                                    B
                      AUGUST 7, 2009
     [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Acquisition proceedings -
Requirement of issuing notice - Duty of Collector - Held:           C
Collector is required to issue, in addition to the public notice
to all persons interested, individual notices to persons known
or believed to be interested in the acquired land - Persons
known to be interested are those whose names are recorded
in revenue records and they are entitled to notice - Collector      D
is not under obligation to hold enquiry to find out whether
there are any other persons interested in land or whether there
are any vested remaindermen in addition to those whose
names were entered in the records - Who is to be 'believed
to have interest' is subjective administrative decision.            E

      Fraud on Court: When a writ petition is filed seeking to
enforce or protect the interests or rights of writ petitioners,
purely based on legal contentions, it cannot be termed that
filing of writ petitions was playing of fraud by writ petitioners
against the Government/Court.                                       F
     Criminal law: Criminal Proceedings cannot be set into
motion against a litigant, as a matter of course - Court's order
directing prosecution of litigants in a casual manner without
any investigation or enquiry either by itself or by any             G
independent investigation agency, is deprecated - Supreme
Court on several occasions deprecated certain authoritarian
practices which result in hardship and prejudice to litigants
and even non-parties - Power to order prosecution to be used
                               1215                                 H
    1216     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, either to maintain
  the majesty of law or to ensure that clearly established
  offences relating to fraud/forgery with reference to court
  proceedings do not go unprosecuted or unpunished - On
  facts, direction of High Court that appellants and respondents
B 3 to 18 be prosecuted under the relevant provisions of law was
  wholly unwarranted.

        Words and Phrases: 'Person interested' and 'persons
  known or believed to be interested' - Meaning of and
C distinction between - Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
       Respondents 3 to 6 were the life estate holders
  whose names were entered in the revenue records.
  Appellants and respondents 7 to 18 were their children
  and were the vested remaindermen in regard to the
D acquired lands. Notices were served in the acquisition
  proceedings on respondents 3 to 6. Respondents 3 to 6
  informed the Collector that they were only life estate
  holders and that the vested remaindermen should be
  served with notice. But no notice was issued. The
E Collector passed an award. The appellants filed a writ
  petition challenging the acquisition.· The Single Judge of
  High Court allowed the same holding that the acquisition
  without issue of notice to appellants and respondents 7
  to 18 was illegal.
F     The respondents 1 and 2, authorities filed writ
  appeal. The Division Bench of High Court held that the
  Collector was not obliged to serve the notice of
  acquisition on anyone other than the persons whose
  names were entered in the revenue records as owners,
G and that as the vested remaindermen had not got their
  names entered as holders in the revenue records, they
  were not entitled to any separate notice. The Divisi<?n
  Bench issued direction to respondents 1 and 2 to initiate
  criminal action against the appellants and respondents
H
       S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 1217
                  TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU

     7 to 18 for playing fraud on the Government and the            A
     Court, for making wrongful gains by filing the writ petition
     which was not maintainable. Hence the appeal.

         Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: 1.1. The Collector is required to issue, in         B
     addition to the public notice to all persons interested,
     individual notices to persons known or believed to be
     interested in the acquired land. There is a significant
     difference between 'persons known or believed to be
     interested' and 'persons interested'. A 'person interested'    C
     no doubt would include all persons claiming an interest
     in the compensation on account of the acquisition of
     land, including the vested remaindermen. On the other
     hand, 'a person known to be interested' refers to persons
     whose names are recorded in the revenue records, as            D
..   persons having an interest in the acquired lands, as the
     owner, sharer, occupier or holder of any interest. They
     are entitled to notice. There is no obligation on the part
     of the Collector to hold an enquiry to find out whether
     there are any other persons interested in the land or          E
     whether there are any vested remaindermen, in addition
     to those whose names are entered as the owners/
     holders/occupiers of the acquired land. Nor does the
     Collector have any obligation to issue notices to persons
     whose names are not entered in the revenue records.            F
     This does not mean that the persons whose names are
     not entered in the revenue records do not have any right
     in the acquired land or that they lose their claim to
     compensation. Their interests and rights in regard to
     compensation are protected by the provision relating to        G
     apportionment of compensation and provision for
     referring the disputes to a civil court for apportionment
     of compensation. (Paras 5 and 6] [1222-F-H; 1223-A-D]


                                                                    H
    1218     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009] 12 S.C.R.


A      1.2. No person has any right to assert that the
  Collector should recognise him to be a person interested
  in the acquired land, and issue notice to him, merely
  because someone informs the Collector that such
  person is also having an interest, if his name is not
B entered in the revenue records. Of course, if the Collector
  is prima facie satisfied from his records that someone
  other than those whose names are entered in the
  revenue records, are also interested in the land, he may
  at his discretion, issue notice to them. If he is not satisfied,
c he need not issue notice to them. Who is to be 'believed
  to have an interest' is purely subjective administrative
  decision. Such persons have no right to claim that notice
  of acquisition should be issued to them. Therefore, notice
  of acquisition has to be issued only to those whose
  names are entered or recorded as owners/ holders/
0
  occupiers .in the revenue records and not to others.[Para
  7) [1223-G-H; 1224-A-C]

        2. The Division Bench reversed the decision of the
  Single Judge purely on a legal ground, that the persons
E whose names are entered in the revenue records as
  owners, are alone entitled to· notice, and others though
  may have an interest, would not be entitled to notice of
  acquisition. It did not record any finding that the claim of
  the writ petitioners (appellants) that they and respondents
F 7 to 18 were the vested remaindermen, was false. The
  Division Bench however drew an inference that the
  persons claiming to be the vested remaindermen, being
  close relatives of the persons who were served notices,
  should be imputed with the knowledge of the acquisition
G proceedings and therefore their writ petition contending
  that they did not have notice of the acquisition, was
  misconceived. But what was missed was the fact that the
  specific contention of appellants was that they were
  entitled to notice of acquisition from the Collector and that
H
        S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 1219
                   TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU

 .,   such notice was not given. They did not contend that            A
      they did not have knowledge of acquisition. There was
      also no material to show that the writ petitioners and the
      private respondents, who are ordered to be prosecuted,
      had furnished any false information or made any false
      claim. There was no evidence of any fraud. When a writ          B
      petition is filed seeking to enforce or protect the interests
      or rights of the writ petitioners, purely based on legal
      contentions, it cannot be termed that filing of the writ
      petition was "playing of a fraud by the writ petitioners
      against the government or court." [Para 9) [1225-B-F]           c
           3.1. Courts should avoid the temptation to become
      authoritarian. The power to otder prosecution has to be
      used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, either
      to maintain the majesty of law or to ensure that clearly
      established offences relating to fraud/forgery with D
      reference to court proceedings do ·not go unprosecuted
      or unpunished. Ordering prosecutions in a casual
      manner while reversing the decision of a Single Judge
      in a writ petition, without any investigation or enquiry
      either by itself or by any independent investigation E
      agency, is to be deprecated. Criminal law cannot be set
      into motion against a litigant, as a matter of course. On
      several occasions, this Court has deprecated certain
      authoritarian practices which result in hardship and
      prejudice to litigants and even non-parties. The well- F
      known instances are : (1) passing adverse remarks
      against government officers or others who are not
      parties to the lis, without giving an opportunity to them
      to show-cause or justify their action; (2) directing the
      State to recover any losses or damages or costs from a G
,.    particular officer (who is not a party) by holding him
      personally liable for some alleged act or omission,
      without giving him any opportunity to explain his
      position, conduct or action; (3) directing prosecution of
      parties and/or non-parties, in cases which merely warrant H
    1220     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2009] 12 S.C.R.


A levy of costs or admonition. [Paras 10 and 11] (1225-G-
  H; 1226-A-E]

       3.2. The Division Bench directed that the
   respondents in the writ appeal before it (appellants and
   respondents 3 to 18) should be prosecuted "under the
8
   relevant provisions of law, including IPC, for playing a
   fraud on the Court with wrong particulars". The Division
   Bench did not specify the provision under which they
   should be prosecuted nor the offence of which they are
   accused. The only provision of relevance is section 209
C of the Penal Code, which provides that whoever,
   fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or
   annoy any persons, makes in a court any claim which he
   knows to be false, is liable to punishment as provided
   under law. But four things stand out in this case. The first
D is that raising a purely legal contention in a writ petition
   canriot give rise to an inference that the writ petitioners
   had fraudulently or dishonestly or with intent to injure or
  annoy anyone, made any claim knowing it to be false. The
  second is that there was also no material before the
E Division Bench to show that any person having an
  interest in the acquired' lands had played fraud upon the
  government or the court. The third is that respondents 7
  to 18 who had neither initiated any legal proceedings, nor
  took any action in the matter, could not have been
F ordered to be prosecuted, thereby showing non-
  application of mind in issuing the direction for
  prosecution. The fourth is that if a fraud had been played
  on the court, the High Court ought to have made a
  complaint in writing through an authorised officer of the
G court, instead of directing respondents 1 and 2 to
  prosecute the parties. On the facts and circumstances,
  the direction to initiate criminal prosecution against the
  appellants and the respondents 3 to 18 was wholly
  unwarranted. [Paras 13 and 14) [1227-E-H; 1228-A-D]
H
      S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 1221
                 TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.                    A
    5743 of 2009.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 17.3.2008 of the High
'   Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 224 of 2002.

         S. Nanda Kumar, G. Anand Selvan, V.N. Raghupathy for              8
    the Appellants.

         S. Thananjayan for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                           c
         R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard the



-
    learned counsel.

         2. Certain lands in Pazhavoor village were acquired under
    the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare                D
    Schemes Act. Notice regarding acquisition was served on
    respondents 3 to 6 who were shown as the owners of the land
    in the revenue records. Respondents 3 to 6 informed the
    Collector (first respondent) that they were only life estate holders
    and that the vested remaindermen should be served with                 E
    notice. But notice was not issued to them. On the other hand,
    second respondent passed an award on 3.6.1997. Thereafter,
    possession of the acquired lands was taken and made into
    plots and distributed to intended beneficiaries.

          3. Appellants 1 to 4 filed a writ petition alleging that the     F
    acquired lands originally belonged to one S. Kanthimathinatha
    Pillai; that under a registered will, he bequeathed the said lands
    to his grandchildren (appellants and respondents 7 to 18)
    subject to a life interest in favour of his sons (iespondents 3 to
    6); and that thus the appellants and respondents 7 to 18, who          G
    were the children of respondents 3 to 6, were the vested
    remaindermen in regard to the said lands. They contended that
    the acquisition proceedings were illegal and liable to be
    quashed for w;:int of notice of acquisition to the vested
    remaindermen who were persons inter:ested. The said                    H
    1222      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2009] 12 S.C.R.


A contention raised in the writ petition was purely a legal
  contention. A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court
  accepted the said legal contention and held that the acquisition
  without issue of notice to them was illegal. He therefore allowed
  the writ petition by order dated 13.11.2001 and set aside the
B acquisition, reserving liberty to respondents 1 and 2 to initiate
  fresh acquisition proceedings after appropriate notice to the
  writ petitioners. The order of the learned Single Judge was
  challenged by respondents 1 and 2 in a writ appeal.

        4. A division bench of the High Court, by the impugned
C order dated 17.3.2008, allowed the appeal, set aside the order
   of the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the writ petition.
   The division bench held that the Collector was not obliged to
   serve the notice of acquisition on anyone other than the
   persons whose names were entered in the revenue records as
D owners; and that as the vested remaindermen, had not got their
   names entered as holders/owners in the revenue records, they
                                                                       -
  were not entitled to any separate notice. The division bench also
   issued a direction to respondents 1 and 2 herein to initiate
  criminal action against the appellants and private respondents
E 7 to 18 herein "for playing fraud on the Government and the
  Court, for making wrongful gains by filing a writ petition which
  was not maintainable." The appellants have challenged the said
  judgment.

F      5. The first question is whether the vested remaindermen
  of acquired lands were entitled to notice of acquisition, even if
  their names were not entered in the revenue records. The
  Collector (or others exercising the functions of Collector) is
  required to issue, in addition to the public notice to all persons
G interested, individual notices to persons known or believed to
  be interested in the acquired land. There is a significant
  difference between 'persons known or believed to be
  interested' and 'persons interested'. A 'person interested' no
  doubt would include all persons claiming an interest in the
  compensation on account of the acquisition of land, including .
H
        S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 1223
        TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

      the vested remaindermen.                                             A
            6. On the other hand, 'a person known to be interested'
       refers to persons whose names are recorded in the revenue
       records, as persons having an interest in the acquired lands,
       as the owner, sharer, occupier or holder of any interest. They
                                                                           8
       are entitled to notice. There is no obligation on the part of the
       Collector to hold an enquiry to find out whether there are any
       other persons interested in the land or whether there are any
       vested remaindermen, in addition to those whose names are
       entered as the owners/holders/occupiers of the acquired land.       C
       Nor does the Collector have any obligation to issue notices to
       persons whose names are not entered in the revenue records.
       This does not mean that the persons whose names are not
       entered in the revenue records do not have any right in the
       acquired land or that they lose their claim to compensation.
       Their interests and rights in regard to compensation are            D
       protected by the provision relating to apportionment of
       compensation and provision for referring the disputes to a civil
     . court for apportionment of compensation.

           7. Persons are "believed" to be interested in the acquired      E
      land, if their names are disclosed to the Collector as persons
      having an interest in the acquired land (though their names are
      not entered in the revenue records) either in correspondence
      or otherwise and whom the Collector believes as having an
      interest in the acquired lands. The question whether a person        F
      is believed to be interested in the acquired land, would depend
      upon the subjective satisfaction of the Collector. The Collector
      is not expected to hold mini enquiries to find out whether the
.,
      persons whose names are disclosed, (other than those whose
      names are entered in the revenue records) are persons                G
      interested in the acquired land or not. Therefore no person has
      any right to assert that the Collector should recognise him to
      be a person interested in the acquired land, and issue notice
      to him, merely because someone informs the Collector that
      such person is also having an interest, if his name is not entered
                                                                           H
     1224     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 12 S.C.R.


A in the revenue records. Of course, if the Collector is prima facie
   satisfied from his records that someone other than those whose
  names are entered in the revenue records, are also interested
  in the land, he may at his discretion, issue notice to them. If he
  is not satisfied, he need not issue notice to them. Who is to be
B 'believed to have an interest' is purely subjective administrative
  decision. Such persons have no right to claim that notice of
  acquisition should be issued to them.

       7. Therefore we agree with the division bench that notice       I .
  of acquisition has to be issued only to those whose names are
C entered or recorded as owners/ holders/occupiers in the
  revenue records and not to others.

        8. The next question is whether the High Court could have
   directed prosecution of writ petitioners and the private
D respondents. Let us recall the facts relevant once again in this
   context. Respondents 3 to 6 are the life interest holders whose
   names are entered in the revenue records. Appellants and
   respondents 7 to 18 are their children, who are the vested
   remaindermen in regard to the acquired lands. Notices were
E served in the acquisition proceeding on respondents 3 to 6.
  They stated that they were only life-interest holders and notice
  should be served on the vested remaindermen also. But that
  was not accepted and the acquisition was completed. A writ
  petition was filed by the appellants challenging the acquisition
F on the ground that the vested remaindermen in regard to the
  acquired lands were not issued notice of acquisition. It is
  relevant to note that they did not allege or contend that they did
  not have knowledge of the acquisition. The learned Single
  Judge accepted the contention and set aside the acquisition                ,.
G proceedings. In the writ appeal, respondents 1 and 2
  contended that the persons other than those whose names
  were entered in the revenue records were not entitled to notice
  and therefore the learned Single Judge had erred in quashing
  the acquisition, that too after possession of the acquired lands
  was taken and they were distributed as plots to landless weaker
H
       S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 1225
       TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

     sections. It was not the case of respondents 1 and 2 that the      A
-·   persons claiming to be vested remaindermen were served any
     notice. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal filed by
     respondents 1 and 2 herein.

           9. The Division Bench reversed the decision of the learned B
     Single Judge purely on a legal ground, that the persons whose
     names are entered in the revenue records as owners, are alone
     entitled to notice, and others though may have an interest, will
     not be entitled to notice of acquisition. It did not record any
     finding that the claim of the writ petitioners (appellants herein) C
     that they and respondents 7 to 18 were the vested
     remaindermen, was false. The divisio_n bench however drew an
     inference that the persons claiming to be the vested
     remaindermen, being close relatives of the persons who were
     served notices, should be imputed with the knowledge of the
     acquisition proceedings and therefore their writ petition D
     contending that they did not have notice of the acquisition, was
     misconceived. But what was missed was the fact that the
     specific contention of appellants was that they were entitled to
     notice of acquisition from the Collector and that such notice was
     not given, and that they did not contend that they did not have E
     knowledge of acquisition. There was also no material to show
     that the writ petitioners and the private respondents, who are
     ordered to be prosecuted, had furnished any false information
     or made any false claim. There was no evidence of any fraud.
     When a writ petition is filed seeking to enforce or protect the F
     interests or rights of the writ petitioners, purely based on legal
     contentions, it cannot be termed that filing of the writ petition
     was "playing of a fraud by the writ petitioners against the
     Government or court."
                                                                          G
           10. Courts should avoid the temptation to become
     authoritarian. We have been coming across several instances,
     where in their anxiety to do justice, courts have gone overboard,
     which results in injustice, rather than justice. It is said that all
     power is trust and with greater power comes greater
                                                                          H
    1226      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009] 12 S.C.R.


A responsibility. The power to order a prosecution has to be used
  sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, either to maintain
  the majesty of law or to ensure that clearly established offences
  relating to fraud/forgery with reference to court proceedings do
  not go unprosecuted or unpunished. Ordering prosecutions in
B a casual manner while reversing the decision of a learned
  Single Judge in a writ petition, without any investigation or
  enquiry either by itself or by any independent investigation
  agency, is to be deprecated. Criminal law cannot be set into
  motion against a litigant, as a matter of course.
c       11. On several occasions, this Court has deprecated
  certain authoritarian practices which result in hardship and
  prejudice to litigants and even non-parties. The well-known
  instances are : (1) passing adverse remarks against
  government officers or others who are not parties to the lis,
D without giving an opportunity to them to show-cause or justify
  their action; (2) directing the state to recover any losses or
  damages or costs from a particular officer (who is not a party)
  by holding him personally liable for some alleged act or
  omission, without giving him any opportunity to explain his
E position, conduct or action; (3) directing prosecution of parties
  and/or non-parties, in cases which merely warrant levy of costs
  or admonition.

        12. Under the Indian Penal Code, offences relating to false
F evidence and offences against public justice are contained in
  Chapter XI. In relation to proceeding in any court, the offences
  enumerated are : giving false evidence or fabricating false
  evidence (Sec. 191 to 193); giving or fabricating false evidence
  with intent to procure conviction (Sec. 194 and 195); threatening
G any person to give false evidence (Sec. 195A); using evidence
  known to be false (Sec. 196); using as true a certificate known
  to be false (Sec. 198); making a false statement in a declaration
  which is by law receivable as evidence (Sec. 199); using as
  true any declaration receivable as evidence, knowing it to be
  false (sec. 200) causing disappearance of evidence of offence,
H
  S. PALANI VELAYUTHAM v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 1227
  TIRUNVELVELI, TAMIL NADU [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

or giving false information to screen offender (Sec. 201 );              A
intentional omission to give information of offence by person
bound to inform (Sec. 202); giving false information in respect
of an offence (Sec. 203); destruction of document or electronic
record to prevent its production as evidence (Sec 204); false
personation (sec. 205); fraudulent removal/concealment of                B
property (sec. 206); fraudulent claim to property (sec. 207);
fraudulently suffering or obtaining decree for sum not due (sec.
208 and 210); dishonestly making a false claim in Court
(Section 209); and intentional insult or interruption to public
servant sitting in judicial proceedings (sec 228). Section 195           c
of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to
188 (dealing with the contempt of the lawful authority of public
servants) or sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and
228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in,
                                                                         0
or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, except on the
complaint in writing of that court by such officer of the court
as that court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some
other court to which that court is sub-ordinate.

      13. The Division Bench has directed that the respondents           E
in the writ appeal before it (appellants· and respondents 3 to
18 herein) should_be prosecuted "under the relevant provisions
of law, including IPC, for playing a fraud on the Court with
wrong particulars". The Division Bench has not specified the
provision under which they should be prosecuted nor the                  F
offence of which they are accused. The only provision of
relevance is section 209 of the Penal Code, which provides that
whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or
annoy any persons, makes in a court any claim which he knows
to be false, is liable to punishment as provided under law. But          G
four things stand out in this case. The first is that raising a purely
legal contention in a writ petition cannot give rise to an
inference that the writ petitioners had fraudulently or dishonestly
or with intent to injure or annoy anyone, made any claim
knowing it to be false. The second is that there was also no             H
    1228      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 12 S.C.R.


A  material before the division bench to show that any person
   having an interest in the acquired lands had played fraud upon
  the government or the court. The third is that respondents 7 to
  18 who had neither initiated any legal proceedings, nor took
  any action in the matter, could not have been ordered to be
8 prosecuted,  thereby showing non-application of mind in issuing
  the direction for prosecution. The fourth is that if a fraud had
  been played on the court, the High Court ought to have made
  a complaint in writing through an authorised officer of the court,
  instead of directing respondents 1 and 2 to prosecute the
C parties.
       14. On the facts and circumstances, the direction to initiate
  criminal prosecution against the appellants and the
  respondents 3 to 18 was wholly unwarranted. We therefore
  allow this appeal in part and set aside the direction to initiate
D criminal proceedings against the appellants and respondents
  3 to 18.
    D.G.                                    Appeal partly allowed.