The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has warned that it may order registration of an FIR if it is found that Government law officers appeared without authorisation in a Nagpur Ring Road land acquisition case where compensation was allegedly enhanced ten-fold by the Reference Court. The observation was made by a Division Bench of Justice Anil L Pansare and Justice Rajnish R Vyas while hearing a civil application filed by the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) in the Nagpur Ring Road land acquisition case. The application seeks condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a compensation award passed by the Reference Court. Counsel for the MSRDC argued that the acquiring body had never authorised the District Government Pleader or the Assistant Government Pleader to represent it before the Reference Court. He told the court that despite having no authority, Government law officers appeared in the case.

 

He alleged that they neither led evidence nor argued the matter to protect the interests of the MSRDC. The counsel further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was almost ten times higher than the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He said the corporation came to know about the award only after receiving notice in execution proceedings. Taking serious note of the submissions, the High Court observed that if the allegations were found to true, the interests of the acquiring body had not been protected. The Bench said that if it was established that Government law officers had appeared without valid authorisation, it would even consider directing registration of an FIR against the person responsible.

 

The court directed the AGP’s office to file a detailed reply and produce any authorisation issued by the MSRDC for appearing before the Reference Court. Notice was issued to the respondents. The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 18. The High Court also stayed the execution proceedings in the present case until further orders. The court clarified that its observations were only at the preliminary stage while considering the delay condonation application and that it would take a final view after receiving the State’s reply. Advocate A D Mohagaonkar appeared for the applicant. AGP B M Lonare represented the State, while Advocate S Bhattad appeared for the respondents.