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

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."

"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 GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 310

Click Here To Read/Download Order