Bullet Train Project | Wild Allegations Of Fraud In Distribution Of Compensation Without Cogent Material: Gujarat HC Refuses To Exercise Writ Jurisdiction

The Gujarat High Court recently declined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in a petition seeking equal distribution of compensation as per Sec 31(2)(b) in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed that the Petitioners alleging mischief on behalf of the State authorities should have initiated proceedings before appropriate forum when they first became aware of the mischief. However, the instant petition was filed a year later without cogent material or clear pleadings."Petitioners have made wild allegations against the respondent authorities and are trying to brand them as fraudulent act in collusion with each other and if that be so, according to the petitioners, writ remedy in our considered opinion is not appropriate."The High Court was hearing the petition in connection with the National project of Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail Corridor or the 'Bullet Train Project'. Certain portions of land had been acquired for this purpose and the Petitioners were affected parties because of the acquisition. However, they did not provide any details about the acquisition in the petition. The substance of the petition was that officers had collected Aadhar Cards, photographs, consent letter, power of attorney and passbook with respect to petitioners' account and power of attorney was given to their close-relative, Respondent No.4, who allegedly defrauded them by withdrawing a sum INR 2 crores given in compensation to the Petitioners. They averred that they had cautioned the bank however, the Respondent illegally transferred a certain amount to his private account which should have been transferred to the joint account.Thus, the Petitioners contended that equal amount of compensation should have been disbursed and hence respondent authorities have violated Section 31 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. They also alleged that the bank officers had colluded with Respondent No. 4 even as the authorities failed to distribute compensation to each affected family. The AGP, per contra, insisted that the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount should be taken to the appropriate forum and not the High Court. Further, the mandate of Sec 31 was observed by the authorities by making the deposit and any dispute between the beneficiaries could not be agitated in the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction. After assessing the facts, the Bench pointed out that on one hand the Petitioners claimed that the bank officers had siphoned off the funds with Respondent No. 4 and on the other, the Petitioner had objected to the single withdrawal and therefore, the amount was re-deposited in the bank. Thus, the facts of the case were seriously disputed per the Bench. The consent letter and the power of attorney also were not part of record before the Court which made examination of the facts difficult. The averment that the Petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.10 lakhs twice from the bank was also not backed by evidence. The High Court rejected the reliance on precedents by the Petitioner by reiterating: "It is settled proposition of law that if the facts are quite distinct and even one additional fact would make a world of difference in applying the ratio by way of precedent."The Bench affirmed that parties have several remedies and they must elect a remedy without multiplicity of actions, particularly since writ jurisdiction is extraordinary and discretionary in nature. Consequently, it was held:"Further, from the assertion, it has been observed that petitioners have made wild allegations against the respondent authorities and are trying to brand them as fraudulent act in collusion with each other and if that be so, according to the petitioners, writ remedy in our considered opinion is not appropriate. Petitioners can maintain or agitate such issues before appropriate authorities either under the Act or by initiating appropriate proceedings which may be advised." Case No.: C/SCA/4139/2021 Case Title: SAVITABEN MANGALBHAI PARMAR v/s STATE OF GUJARATCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 310Click Here To Read/Download Order

Bullet Train Project | Wild Allegations Of Fraud In Distribution Of Compensation Without Cogent Material: Gujarat HC Refuses To Exercise Writ Jurisdiction

PRIYANKA PREET

Tags