Disputed land-acquisition records require Crime Branch investigation with signature verification and cyber forensics.

The petitioner claimed lawful allotment and possession of 0.740 acres under Khatian No. 720.

Of this, 0.498 acres was acquired for the NH-208 Project under Award No. 1248 dated 21 October 2025, leaving 0.242 acres allegedly unacquired.

She apprehended that part of the remaining land had been occupied or utilised for the project without acquisition or compensation.

She alleged that no proper GPS/geo-tracking survey, physical verification, demarcation, or fixation of boundary pillars had been undertaken despite notice to the authorities.

The State contended that joint verification and demarcation had been conducted, that the petitioner had signed a statement recording her satisfaction, and that she had communicated her acknowledgment by email dated 21 August 2026.

The petitioner disputed the authenticity and evidentiary value of those documents, stating that she was illiterate, unfamiliar with English, and had no access to the internet.

In view of the disputed signatures and email, the High Court referred the matter to the Crime Branch for investigation.

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions of fact requiring extensive evidentiary or forensic examination are ordinarily unsuitable for direct adjudication in writ proceedings.

It further relied on the Court’s inherent power to issue appropriate directions to secure the ends of justice, including referring matters requiring specialised investigation to a competent law-enforcement agency.

The Court also invoked the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, particularly to ensure that genuine land occupants are not deprived of their legitimate property rights and compensation.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the petitioner’s allegation of unauthorised use of the unacquired portion involved a factual determination requiring accurate measurement, demarcation, and verification.

The State’s reliance on the petitioner’s purported statement and email did not resolve the controversy because the petitioner expressly challenged her signature, the contents of the statement, and the authenticity of the email on grounds of illiteracy, lack of familiarity with English, and lack of internet access.

These allegations created a reasonable apprehension that the documents might not reliably establish the petitioner’s consent or satisfaction.

Since the High Court does not ordinarily undertake extensive evidence-taking or forensic analysis in writ proceedings, it considered investigation by the Crime Branch, including signature verification and cyber-forensics, necessary to ascertain the truth and protect the petitioner’s legitimate land rights.

It directed the concerned department to assign the matter to a Senior Officer of the Crime Branch for investigation, including signature verification and cyber-forensic examination of the disputed documents.

After completion of the investigation, the Crime Branch was directed to submit its report to the District Magistrate and Collector, who was directed to take further action and decide the petitioner’s grievance in accordance with law.

The writ petition and any pending applications were accordingly disposed of.