# Abhai Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39577
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhai-kumar-rai-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39577
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1ALL] Abhai Kumar Rai V. State of U.P. and others 71
elsewhere including such other mitigating
Circumstances as may be relevant under law.
In case Petitioner was not gainfully employed
and willing to work, she shall be paid full
back wages with 12% per annum simple
interest from the date of salary being due till
the date of actual payment of the dues.

20. Writ Petition stands allowed.

No order as to costs.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 3$/2. %$68 -
7+( +21·%/( 3$/2. %$68 -
7+( +21·%/( 6.-$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 6.-$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 12 RI

$EKDL .XPDU 5DL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 3ULQFLSDO 6HFUHWDU\
,UULJDWLRQ
83
/XFNQRZ
DQG
RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 6. &KDXEH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

/DQG DFTXLVLWLRQ $FW 6V DQG 1RWLILFDWLRQ
XV XVHG LQ DFTXLULQJ SHWLWLRQHU¶V
DJULFXOWXUDO
ODQGFRPSHQVDWLRQ
QRW
SDLG
LQVSLWH
RI
&RXUW¶V
GLUHFWLRQV
LQ
HDUOLHU
SHWLWLRQ
RQ
WHFKQLFDO
JURXQG
WKDW
6
GHFODUDWLRQ LV QRW PDGH &RXUW UHGLUHFWHG
UHVSRQGHQWV
WR
SD\
FRPSHQVDWLRQ
WR
SHWLWLRQHU WRJHWKHU ZLWK VSHFLDO FRVWV RI
 ZLWK WZR PRQWKV
+HOG
7KLV &RXUW VKDOO QRW HQWHUWDLQ VXFK D GHIHQFH
EHFDXVH LW DPRXQWV WR IORXWLQJ RI ODZ RQO\ RQ
D
WHFKQLFDO
SOHD
&RQWULEXWLRQ
IURP
WKH
GHSDUWPHQW
FRQFHUQHG
KDYLQJ
QRW
EHHQ
PDGH WR WKH *RYHUQPHQW FDQQRW EH DFFHSWHG
DV D YDOLG UHDVRQ IRU QRQSD\PHQW RI WKH
FRPSHQVDWLRQ ZKHQ WKH SRRU FXOWLYDWRU LQ
IDFW VWDQGV GLYHVWHG RI KLV ODQG 7KH SXUSRVH
RI DFTXLVLWLRQ PD\ EH RQH RU WKH RWKHU VR
ORQJ DV WKH ODQG RZQHU LV QRW WKURZQ RXW RI
SRVVHVVLRQ
DOO
WHFKQLFDOLWLHV
PD\
EH
H[DPLQHG
%XW ZKHQ KH DFWXDOO\ VWDQGV
GLVSRVVHVVHG
IURP
WKH
ODQG
WKH
6WDWH
*RYHUQPHQW LV ERXQG WR FRPSHQVDWH VXFK
RXVWHG SHUVRQV
7KLV ZULW SHWLWLRQ FRQVHTXHQWO\ VXFFHHGV DQG
LV
DOORZHG
ZLWK
VSHFLDO
FRVW
ZKLFK
LV
DVVHVVHG DW 5V 3DUD DQG

By the Court

1. It is strange case where an innocent
citizen living in interior of an under developed
village is being deprived of his agricultural
land on the ground of establishing an
irrigation canal but compensation has not
been paid to him since the year 1981.
Petitioner has to rush up to this court for
second time even though the first order dated
29.11.199 directed the payment of the
compensation to be made expeditiously vide
orders in writ petition no.37926 of 1996
quoted in paragraph 3 of the instant writ
petition. When this writ petition was filed
before this court a counter affidavit was called
because the pleadings were on the part of an
helpless innocent citizen. While calling the
counter affidavit therefore interim mandamus
was also issued which was to the following
effect :

2. "An interim mandamus is hereby
issued to the respondents to grant the
compensation to the petitioner within one
month
from
today
and
release
the
compensation amount to the petitioner within
2 weeks or show cause by filing a counter
affidavit why the petitioner be not paid the
compensation and the aforesaid relief be not
finally granted."

3. In response two counter affidavits
have been filed. One has been sworn by Sri
Sandeep Kumar Sharma who is presently
posted as Additional District Magistrate, Sant
Ravi Das Nagar. Sri Indra Deo Prasad
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
72
presently
posted
as
Assistant
Engineer
Tubewell Maintenance Division Bhadohi,
District Sant Ravi Das Nagar has sworn the
second counter affidavit. The contents of
both these counter affidavits are identical in
terms. The difference existed only in some of
the averments which are not relevant for the
purpose of the deciding the question of
payment of compensation to the petitioner.
The relevant paragraph in the writ petition
which required answer from the respondent is
paragraph 7 which reads as under.

"That the land plot belongs to the
petitioner was possessed by the respondent
authorities in the year 1991-92 and the
construction over the land plot in dispute,
tubewell for irrigation purposes has already
been made and the notification pertaining to
acquisition was made on 16th April, 1996
under section 4(1) of the Act. True copy of
U.P. Gazette dated 16th April 1996 which is
pertaining to publication of notification is
being filed herewith and is marked as
Annexure-5 to the writ petition."

4. Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit
filed by Sri Sandeep Kumar Sharma as also
paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by
Indra Deo Prasad read as under :

"That the contents of para 7 of the writ
petition are admitted to the EXTENT THAT
THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS TAKEN
BY TUBEWELL DEPARTMENT. IT IS
ALSO ADMITTED THAT SECTION 4
NOTIFICATION WAS ALSO PUBLISHED
(Emphasis by Court)

5. It is amazing that the defence pleaded
in the two counter affidavits is that the
tubewell division or department did not
contribute
to
the
state
exchequer,
the
compensation amount could not be paid to the
tenure holders. It has been pleaded that unless
the department for which the land is sought to
be acquired, does not deposit or contribute
the amount of compensation into the state
exchequer, it is not possible to issue
notification under section 6 declaration was
not issued the petitioners are not entitled to
get compensation as no award proceedings
could start.

6. How sweet it is to day on the one hand
that the compensation will be awardable only
if section 6 declaration is issued and on the
other admit that though actual physical
possession of the land has been taken by a
department of the State after notification only
under section 4 State should be exonerated
from its responsibility in making payment of
the compensation. This court shall not
entertain such a defence because it amounts to
flouting of law only on a technical plea.
Contribution from the department concerned
having not been made to the Government
cannot be accepted as a valid reason for non-
payment of the compensation when the poor
cultivator in fact stands divested of his land.
The purpose of acquisition may be one or the
other, so long as the land owner is not thrown
out of possession, all technicalities may be
examined. But when he actually stands
dispossessed
from
the
land,
the
State
Government is bound to compensate such
ousted persons. A departmental or interdepartmental matter can not be interpreted to
thwart the legal right of the citizen to get
compensation for the land acquired.

7. This writ petition consequently
succeeds and is allowed with special cost
which is assessed at Rs. 10,000/- . The said
special cost shall be payable on the date on
which the compensation amount is arranged
to be paid. The respondents are directed to
pay the compensation and the special cost to
the petitioner within two months from today.

8. Registrar is hereby required to send a
certified copy of this order to the Chief
Secretary, State of U.P. for ensuring that such
instances are not repeated in the State at least.
The Chief Secretary will do well to get
initiated suitable proceedings so as to recover
1ALL] Abhai Kumar Rai V. State of U.P. and others 73
the amount of special cost from such officials
who may be found negligent and guilty
therein apart from other punishment which
they may deserve.

Copy of this order may be furnished to
the learned counsel for the petitioner and to
the Standing Counsel Sri Vishnu Pratap on the
payment of usual charges within 15 days.
Petition Allowed.
---------