B S SUNDARI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in writ appeal by the High Court confirming the judgment and order of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 867 of 1981. The writ petition was filed impugning the order of forfeiture passed under Section 13 (3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 33 of 1944. It is not in dispute, the original Petitioner was convicted for an offence connected with obtaining excessive compensation in land acquisition proceedings. It is also not in dispute that the offences were covered by the schedule by the aforesaid Ordinance. There was an interim attachment of the property which was made absolute. The Petitioner did not prefer any appeal against this order of attachment. However, an appeal preferred against the order of conviction was dismissed by the High Court.

(2.) It is thereafter, application for forfeituring of property was filed by the Respondent which led to the passing of the impugned order of forfeiture. In order to appreciate the controversy, we are herewith giving some essential facts. There was land acquisition proceeding in respect of atomic power project of Kalpakkam for acquiring 226 acres of land at Pudupattinam village in Chingleput district in which compensation was awarded. Thereafter, a complaint was made by the Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu that officials of the State Government in charge of the land acquisition had entered into criminal conspiracy with the land owners and inflated the compensation amount and obtained collusive awards. This complaint was investigated in which 7 persons including tehsildar and land owners were charged for offence under Section 120B read with Section 409, I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The original Petitioner was the 6th accused along with the brother who was the accused who were the owners of the property in question. After criminal trial, accused No. 6 was found guilty of the aforesaid charges and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years. However, his brother, accused No. 7 was acquitted. An appeal preferred by accused No. 6 was dismissed while the appeal of the State against the acquittal of accused No. 7 was also dismissed. While disposing of this appeal, Court found under Section 12 of the aforesaid Ordinance, accused Nos. 6 and 7 had procured the sum of Rs. 5,99,146.43 p. as excess compensation. It is during the pendency of this criminal case, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department filed the said petition for forfeiture on the 22nd January, 1979. After the disposal of the said criminal appeal, the State also filed a writ petition for quashing the award which was alleged to have been obtained by fraud and collusion. However, when the matter was under consideration, the State withdrew the writ petition seeking leave to file a suit for the recovery of the amount due which was granted which led to the filing of the suit by the State Government.

(3.) It is also relevant to mention here that as accused No. 7, namely, brother of the original Petitioner was acquitted, so he filed application in the High Court for releasing the attached property, which the High Court ordered as such.