DISTRICT COLLECTOR IS NOT A JUDGE CAN NOT DECLARE OWNERSHIP
JAGNARAIN SHARMA
(Querist) 12 August 2009
This query is : Resolved
CITATION IS PUBLISHED IN AIR OR ANY OTHER LAW JOURNAL, I AM NOT AWARE(JUDGMENT IS DT. 30-1-2009 AND PTI HAS RELESED THE NEWS AS GIVEN BELOW)
PTI
First Published : 01 Feb 2009 02:34:38 PM IST
Last Updated :
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has held that a district collector is not a judge and as such cannot seek immunity from prosecution in criminal cases.
A bench of Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal ruled that the immunity granted to judges under Section 77 IPC would not be available to district collectors or the land acquisition officers who acquire private lands and award compensation.
"The Collector is neither a Judge as defined under Section 19 nor does he act judicially, when discharging any of the functions under the (Land Acquisition) Act. Therefore he is not entitled to protection under Section 77 IPC," the apex court observed.
The apex court passed the ruling while setting aside a Rajasthan High Court order wherein the latter had quashed the FIR registered against the Jaipur district collector in a land acquisition case.
The FIR alleges that the Collector while acquiring certain private lands had grabbed lands belonging to the Rajasthan Housing Board in collusion with some having vested interest.
The local police had registered a case of cheating and fraud against the district collector but the High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that the official had acted in his official capacity as a "judge" and as such was entitled to the immunity granted under Section 77 IPC.
Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgeenet " Collectors cannot seek immunity in criminal cases". In fact nobody can be given immunity in criminal and corruption cases not even the PRESIDENT OF INDIA. The moment immunity is given it allows corruption and malpractices. AS it is INDIA HAS become a CRIMINALS PARADISE. This is dangerous and image of the country is bad internationally, TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL HAS ALREADY puit India as highly corrupt. This is bad and must be erased by expeditious judgements and punishments by confiscating illgotten money. B S Ganesh, ganshar@dataone.in 70/9 Basappa Layout, Hanumanthnagar, BANGALORE 560 019
By B S GANESH 2/1/2009 9:57:00 PM
Post your comments *
India Express Buzz
Manish Singh
(Expert) 12 August 2009
yeah, while acquiring land a collector neither functions as a judicial body nor quasi judicially but while adjudicationg disputes over acquisitions, he acts quasi judicially so in the latter case he may get the benefit of sec 77/ipc if acting bonafidely.
but even when it is proved that even a judge has done sth against the laws with mala fide intenetions, he can not take immunity of sec 77.
piyush sharma
(Expert) 12 August 2009
thanks for increasing our knowledge
charudureja
(Expert) 12 August 2009
yes i ve read that judgment, the expressions are correct.
JAGNARAIN SHARMA
(Querist) 12 August 2009
I would like to request Expert Mr Charu Dureja , kindly to help me that in which journal this citation has been published, so that I can quote in a case before Hon. High Court, Luicknow Bench
JAGNARAIN SHARMA
ADVOCATE
2, ASHOK LANE CIVIL COURT
LUCKNOW-226001
MOB: 09335231213
