BHAGWAN WAMANRAO LANGDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner (applicant) Bhagwan s/o Wamanrao Landge did file present Writ petition No. 450/2005, in the matters under section 482 of code of Criminal Procedure and, in the matters under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, seeks declaration that, the arrest of the petitioner, in respect of Crime No. 12/2002, is illegal, unwarranted and, without authority of law. In this petition, the petitioner not only seeks quashment of the charge-sheet in Crime No. 12/2002 but also claims compensation for illegal arrest and, detention of the petitioner on the grounds, firstly, being in absence of sanction, as required under section 197 of cri. P. C. and, secondly, without there being any evidence against him. Now, the petitioner has moved present application (Criminal Application no. 2377/2005) with prayers that, firstly, during the pendency of this matter, the proceedings in Crime No. 12/2002 in respect of the petitioner (accused No. 22) be stayed. Another prayer made by the petitioner, in this application, is about quashing of proceedings in Crime No. 12/2002 taken against this petitioner (accused No. 22) and, it is also the main prayer made in this petition.

(3.) Before proceeding further with the merits of the case, etc. , it is necessary to acquaint ourselves with the facts of the case with which we are concerned. The petitioner worked as Special Land acquisition Officer, during the period from 14-7-1998 to 20-11-1998 i. e. for a period of about four months. The proposal for acquisition of the land was moved in the year 1995. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called Act) was issued on 26-12-1996. The notification under section 4 (1) of the Act was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer P. T. Chavan on 15-2-1997. The notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 20-7-1997 by the Land Acquisition Officer P. T. Chavan and, it was published in the official Gazette on 18-6-1998. All these facts are not in dispute. It is the case of the petitioner, during his small period of the tenure, he only issued notices under section 9 (3) , (4) of the Act. On 20-11-1998, he was transferred from that post. Thereafter, the award was passed, the amount of award was distributed, etc. by another Land acquisition Officer. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he only signed and issued the notices under section 9 (3) , (4) of the Act. In other words, according to him, he is not responsible and liable for the acts, which were done by other Special Land Acquisition officer, before joining on that table, on 14-7-1998. Similarly, according to him, he was not responsible and liable for the acts done by the other Special Land Acquisition officers which taken place after 20-11-1998, after his transfer from that table.