# Anita Devi /Revisionist v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 361
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 6444 of 2006
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anita-devi-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-another-40893
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act,1894-Section 28-AApplication
for
enhancement
of
Compensation-rejection on the ground
no reference filed by the tenure holderheld-illegal, Section 28-A being special
provision enacted for inarticulate and
poor
people
to
apply
for
redetermination by the original /owner.

Held: Para 9

Thus, it is apparent that the legislature
has carved out an exception in the form
of Section 28 and made a special
provision to grant some relief to a
particular class of society, namely poor;
illiterate,
ignorant
and
inarticulate
people. It is made only for little Indians.
The provisions of Section 28-A refers to
the "person interested" which means the
original owner and that original owner
interested must further be a person
aggrieved by the award of the Collector.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1986 SCC(4) 151, 1995 (2) SCC 689, AIR
1996 AWC-1237, 1995 (2) SCC 733, 1995 (2)
SCC 735, 1995 SC 2259, 1995 (2) SCC 766,
AIR 1995 SC 812, 2004 (7) SCC 753, 1991 (1)
SCC 174, 2003 (7) SCC 280, 1997 (6) SCC
280, AIR 1963 SC 1716

## Text

2 All] Anit Devi V. State of U.P. and another
361
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6444 of 2006

Anita Devi
...Complainant/Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri. Narendra Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite parties:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 204
Summoning
order-marshelling
of
evidence
and
critical
appreciation
thereof
held-not
proper-suffer
from
patent illegality cannot be allowed to
sustained.

Held Para 4:

The impugned order indicates that at the
stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C., the trial
court has passed a judgment deciding a
case and have the said impugned order
suffers from patent illegality and cannot
allowed to be sustained in law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and the learned A.G.A.

2. The revisionist is aggrieved by an
order-dated 2.9.2006 passed by C.J.M.,
Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 3989 of
2006 (Anita versus Shailesh Pratap Singh)
has been dismissed under Section 203
Cr.P.C.

3. A perusal of the impugned order
indicates that C.J.M. Azamgarh has
transgressed the jurisdiction vested in him
under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and scanned
the allegations of the complaint as if he is
finally deciding the trial. Needless to say
that marshelling of evidence and critical
appreciation thereof is not required at the
stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C., for the
purposes of summoning under Section
204 Cr.P.C. only a prima facie case is sine
qua non. If the allegations are perceptibly
clear making out an offence then the
accused has to be summoned. Critically
appreciating the allegations at the stage of
summoning by the Magistrate is not
sanctified by the law. There are various
stages in complaint cases during the
course of the trial where the Magistrate or
the trial court is supposed to scan the
evidence. The first stage is under Section
204 Cr.P.C. where only a prima facie case
has to be looked into. Second stage is at
the stage of Section 245 Cr.P.C. where the
trial court is to decide whether the
accused can be charged with any offence
or not. At that stage the trial court can
discharge the accused if in its opinion the
accused has not committed any offence.
The third stage is the stage of finally
deciding the case whether the trial court is
entitled to go into the whole evidence and
all the materials to critically appreciate
and decide the case finally.

4. The impugned order indicates that
at the stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C., the
trial court has passed a judgment deciding
a case and have the said impugned order
suffers from patent illegality and cannot
allowed to be sustained in law.

5. In this view of the matter, this
revision is allowed at the admission stage
itself. The impugned order dated 2.9.2006
passed by C.J.M. Azamgarh in Complaint
Case No. 3989 of 2006, Anita versus
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Shailesh Pratap Singh is hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to C.J.M.
Azamgarh to decide it in accordance with
law.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.03.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.B.S.CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24773 of 2004

Chandra Kishori

...Petitioner
Versus.
The State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.C. Tiwari
Sri P.S. Yadav
Sri S.K. Kulsherstha

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Shri Kant
S.C.

Land Acquisition Act,1894-Section 28-AApplication
for
enhancement
of
Compensation-rejection on the ground
no reference filed by the tenure holderheld-illegal, Section 28-A being special
provision enacted for inarticulate and
poor
people
to
apply
for
redetermination by the original /owner.

Held: Para 9

Thus, it is apparent that the legislature
has carved out an exception in the form
of Section 28 and made a special
provision to grant some relief to a
particular class of society, namely poor;
illiterate,
ignorant
and
inarticulate
people. It is made only for little Indians.
The provisions of Section 28-A refers to
the "person interested" which means the
original owner and that original owner
interested must further be a person
aggrieved by the award of the Collector.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1986 SCC(4) 151, 1995 (2) SCC 689, AIR
1996 AWC-1237, 1995 (2) SCC 733, 1995 (2)
SCC 735, 1995 SC 2259, 1995 (2) SCC 766,
AIR 1995 SC 812, 2004 (7) SCC 753, 1991 (1)
SCC 174, 2003 (7) SCC 280, 1997 (6) SCC
280, AIR 1963 SC 1716

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 23.02.2004,
by which Reference Court rejected the
application of the petitioner under Section
28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter called the Act).

2. The facts and circumstances
giving rise to this case are that the land of
the petitioner was acquired under the
provisions of the Act issuing Notification
under Section 4 on 04.05.1973 and
Declaration
under
Section
6
on
04.08.1973.The Award was made, against
which some of the persons interested filed
Reference under Section 18 of the Act
which was decided on 11.12.1991 by the
Court concerned. On the basis of the said
Reference
Award
dated
11.12.1991
petitioner filed an application under
Section 28-A of the Act claiming the
same rate for her land which was rejected
vide impugned judgment and order of the
Reference Court holding it to be not
maintainable only on the ground that the
application was not maintainable as the
petitioner had not filed application under
Section 18 of the Act before the
Reference Court. Hence this petition.

3. Admittedly, Section 28-A is made
for the poor, ignorant and inarticulate
people who being little Indian cannot
afford to file a Reference under Section