IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26509 of 1999 1. DEBI LAL, SON OF LATE SITA RAM 2. OM PRAKASH, SON OF LATE DOMI RAM ALIAS JAINATH PRASAD BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE CHIRAILA, P.S. RAJAULI, P.O. SINGAR, DISTRICT NAWADAH. 3. HARI SAO, SON OF LATE GOPI SAO 4. HIRA SAO, SON OF CHUTTAR SAO BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BHITIA, P.S. RAJAULI, P.O. SINGAR, DISTRICT NAWADAH. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. BHIKARI YADAV, SON OF BANDHU YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIGHA, TOLA KASTARI, P.S. RAJAULI, P.O. SINGAR, DISTRICT NAWADAH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :- Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Nirbhay Kumar Singh, Advocate 4 10.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. A dam known as Phulwaria Dam was built in the district of Nawadah. The Government for the purposes of constructing the dam acquired vast areas of lands. Land Acquisition Proceedings were initiated and parties appeared in the Land Acquisition Proceedings, filed their documents and award was prepared, compensation paid. All this took place in 1980. On 7.1.1984, a complaint case was instituted alleging that the petitioners had no title to the land they had illegally received compensation from the State of Bihar for the lands which actually belonged 2 to the complainant. The said complaint petition was sent for investigation and an F.I.R. was instituted numbered as Nawadah P.S. Case No. 24 of 1984. A protest petition was filed on 15.2.1984 in which the allegations are the same as made out in the complaint petition. On 23.2.1984, final form was submitted in which there is a finding of the Officer Incharge that the land is in the possession of the petitioners and that they are paying rent to the State of Bihar. In a very odd manner, the complaint petition was dismissed by order dated 3.3.1990. Liberty however, was given to the complainant to rectify the irregularity. This Court finds that there is no bar to get the irregularity, if any existed to be rectified in the proceedings by the Court itself. In any event, the Court proceeded and cognizance was taken in this case on 21.8.1997. The order of cognizance was challenged and rejected by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 125 of 1997/18 of 1997 by order dated 4.9.1998. The present quashing application has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance and the order passed by the Additional District Judge 3 I, Nawadah. I may also refer to the order of the District Judge, Nawadah, dated 17th of August, 1987, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 83 of 1985 and analogous matters. Some of the petitioners appear to be parties before the District Judge, in the case in which the land holders had challenged the quantum of compensation granted to them by the State of Bihar. This order of 1987 remained unchallenged by the complainant. In fact he took no steps to file an application either before the District Magistrate or the Land Acquisition Officer making a claim to his title with respect to the lands under acquisition. The complainant was perhaps ill advised to file a complaint petition. The proper procedure would have been to raise his grievance before the Land Acquisition Authorities by filing an objection in the Land Acquisition Proceeding for reference under Sections 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is apparent that the entire case revolves around the question whether the petitioners have title to the 4 lands or whether the complainant had title to the lands. Unless the complainant can prove that he has title to the lands in question, I do not see how a criminal case can proceed on the basis of the allegations made out in the complaint petition. However, I do not have enough material before me which would justify interference with the order impugned. In case the petitioners file an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be incumbent on the Court to examine whether the complainant can prima facie show by virtue of any document, that he has valid title to the lands in question as there must have been prima facie enquiry in favour of petitioners during the Acquisition Proceedings. If the complainant cannot show that he has title to the lands in question, this case obviously can only be termed as nothing, but a malicious prosecution. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations aforesaid. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)