# Awadhesh Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 142
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application No. 40 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/awadhesh-kumar-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49632
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri Ajit Kumar Singh (Additional Advocate
General),
Sri
Sudhanshu
Srivastava
(Additional Chief Standing Counsel), Sri
Vivek Saran

The Right To Fair Compensation And
Transparency
In
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013
- Section 73 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 161 -
Exchange - Petitioner purchased a plot
through a sale-deed in 2010 - Petitioner
claimed that his plot was surrounded by
the land acquired by the UPSIDCL & there
was no egress or ingress to the said plot -
Petitioner prayed either his land may be
taken & compensation be paid or sale
deed be executed - State opposed the
claim on ground that land acquisition
proceedings were held in the year 1988,
and the petitioner was aware of this when
purchasing the plot in 2010 - Held - State
Authorities cannot be directed to provide
ingress and egress to the petitioner over
the
land
acquired
by
the
State
Government in the year 1988 - However,
in the interest of justice, the petitioner
was compensated by awarding amount of
investment along with interest @ 9%
(Para 24) (E-5)

## Text

142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the services conditions of part- time tube
well operators cannot be equated with the
persons, who are/were working in work
charged establishment, as both are entirely
distinct
and
different.
Further,
the
authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Prem Singh Case was
related to regularization in the Old Pension
scheme era, whereas the present petitioner
came to be regularized only in 2008-2009,
when the new pension scheme was in
vogue in view of the "U.P. Retirement
Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005" w.e.f
01.04.2005. Thus, in view of the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar
Vs Rajmati Devi, the new pension scheme
would be made applicable to the petitioners
after they were regularized. Further, the
Uttar Pradesh Qualifying Service for
Pension and Validation Act, 2021 also does
not come to the rescue of the petitioners as
they neither held nor were appointed on a
temporary or a permanent post prior to their
regularization. They came to be appointed
on a substantive post only after their
regularization and for all intents and
purposes there services can be reckoned
only
from
their
respective
date
of
regularization.

81. Having considered this bunch of
writ petition, this court gives the following
directions:

A. The "qualifying service" for
the purpose of pension shall be reckoned of
the writ petitioners' from the date, when
they had been regularized in the regular
post as Tube well operator.

B. The writ petitioners shall not
be entitled to the Old pension scheme as
the pension scheme vogue at the time of
their respective regularization was the New
Pension Scheme.

C. The state shall take all steps as
per the rules for granting all service
benefits as may be applicable to the writ
petitioners on being regularized, taking cue
from the judgment passed by the larger
bench vide order dated 12.11.2021 in Namo
Narain case. This court holds that as far as
the return and/or consideration of GPF is
concerned, the present writ petitioners are
granted the same relief as has been granted
by the larger bench in the said judgment.

D.
The
exercise
of
reconsideration may be concluded with
expedition and preferably within a period
of 3 months of the date of presentation of a
certified copy of this order.

E. It is made clear that all the
other prayers of the writ petitioners relating
to quashing of the impugned orders or
providing other service benefit is being
rejected & dismissed.

All the writ petitions are DISPOSED
OF in the aforesaid terms. There shall be
no order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 142
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 40 of 2019
In
Writ C No. 16532 of 2017

Awadhesh Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Sri J. Nagar (Sr.
Advocate), Sri R.N. Mishra, Sri Vaibhav
2 All. Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
143
Goswami, Sri Prateek J. Nagar, Supriya
Pratik Nagar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh (Additional Advocate
General),
Sri
Sudhanshu
Srivastava
(Additional Chief Standing Counsel), Sri
Vivek Saran

The Right To Fair Compensation And
Transparency
In
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013
- Section 73 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 161 -
Exchange - Petitioner purchased a plot
through a sale-deed in 2010 - Petitioner
claimed that his plot was surrounded by
the land acquired by the UPSIDCL & there
was no egress or ingress to the said plot -
Petitioner prayed either his land may be
taken & compensation be paid or sale
deed be executed - State opposed the
claim on ground that land acquisition
proceedings were held in the year 1988,
and the petitioner was aware of this when
purchasing the plot in 2010 - Held - State
Authorities cannot be directed to provide
ingress and egress to the petitioner over
the
land
acquired
by
the
State
Government in the year 1988 - However,
in the interest of justice, the petitioner
was compensated by awarding amount of
investment along with interest @ 9%
(Para 24) (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

Order on C.M. Review Application
No.40 of 2019

1. The present review application has
been filed with a prayer to review/recall the
order dated 5.11.2019, by restoring the writ
petition to its original number, with a
further prayer to allow the writ petition by
granting relief prayed for in the writ
petition or with any other relief, which this
Court deem fit and proper in the interest of
the justice.

2. The facts of the case are that the
petitioner in the writ petition, claimed that
he is owner of plot no. 38/302, area 2300
square meter in village Daulatpur, Tehsil
Firozabad, District Firozabad. The said plot
was purchased by the petitioner by a
registered sale deed in the year 2010. It is
further stated in the writ petition that
101.01 acre of land of same village,
surrounding the plot of the petitioner was
acquired by the U.P. State Industrial
Development
Corporation
Limited
(hereinafter referred to ''UPSIDC'). Out of
the aforesaid area, 95.60 acre land was
entered in name of UPSIDC and remaining
06.41 acre was recorded in name of
Collector, Firozabad. The said acquisition
was made in the year 1988.

3. It is further stated in the writ
petition that the land purchased by the
petitioner was not acquired, whereas the
surrounding plots were acquired. Thus, the
petitioner had no ingress and egress to his
plot.

4. The petitioner applied for exchange
of his land with other land as contemplated
under section 161 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
The said application was not decided, as
such, the petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.43249 of 2013, praying for a direction
to the State Authority to decide the
application with regard to exchange of his
plot. The said writ petition was disposed of
with a direction to the authorities to
consider the claim of the petitioner and
pass appropriate order within the time
bound period. The application of the
petitioner for exchange was rejected by the
Authority concerned by an order dated
23.9.2013. The appeal filed by the
petitioner challenging the order was also
rejected
by
the
Commissioner, Agra
Division, Agra. The said order was
144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
challenged by the petitioner by filing a
revision before the Board of Revenue. The
revision of the petitioner was allowed exparte. Thereafter, the State Authority filed a
review application before the Board of
Revenue and the Board of Revenue stayed
its earlier order. The petitioner filed Writ
Petition No. 111 of 2017 for a direction to
the Board of Revenue to decide the review
application filed by the State Authority.
Ultimately, the review application of the
State Authority was allowed and the
revision filed by the petitioner was
dismissed by order dated 19.1.2018. The
order dated 19.1.2018 passed by the Board
of Revenue was subject matter of challenge
by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2976
of 2018. The said writ petition was also
dismissed on 19.3.2018.

5. The petitioner in the present writ
petition has stated that the land of the
petitioner is surrounded by the land
acquired by the State Government. Thus,
there is no ingress and egress to the plot of
the petitioner. It is further stated in the writ
petition that the land of the petitioner is
within
the
boundary
wall
of
the
Government
Medical
College
being
constructed over the acquired land.

6. This Court by an order dated
5.11.2019 dismissed the writ petition on the
ground that the State Government had
denied its possession over the land of the
petitioner and has also denied to be
interested in acquiring the land of the
petitioner. So far as ingress and egress to
the plot of the petitioner is concerned, this
Court kept it open to the petitioner to avail
the remedy under Common Law.

7. The petitioner has argued that the
statement of Additional Advocate General
regarding the possession over the land in
dispute is contrary to record.

8. Elaborating the said argument, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the document, i.e. counter affidavit
filed by Sri Kamal Kumar, Assistant
Resident Engineer, Mainpurl, U.P. Rajkiya
Nirman Nigam Limited, Mainpuri and the
progress report submitted by the Nirman
Nigam pointing out that the plot of the
petitioner is within the boundary wall of the
Government Medical College.

9. It is further argued that the Board
of Revenue in its order dated 19.1.2018
has further recorded a finding that the
land of the petitioner is situated in middle
of the acquired land. It is further argued
that the Board of Revenue has recorded a
finding that the disputed land is situated
in middle of the land allotted for
construction of the Government Medical
College.

10. Based on the aforesaid two
documents, it is argued that the findings
recorded in the order dated 5.11.2019 are
contrary to record, as such, the judgment
is worthy to be reviewed.

11. After hearing the counsel for the
petitioner it appears that the findings of
the Board of Revenue that the land of the
petitioner is situated in middle of the land
acquired by the State Government and
subsequently, allotted for construction of
the Government Medical College has not
been considered by this Court, while
passing the order dated 5.11.2019, as
such, the review application is worthy to
be allowed and is hereby allowed and the
order dated 5.11.2019 is recalled and writ
petition is restored.
2 All. Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
145

Order on the Writ Petition

1. After recalling the order dated
5.11.2019, a fresh opportunity of hearing
has been provided to the counsel for the
petitioner and writ petition is being decided
with the consent of counsel for the parties.
It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner
that since the plot of the petitioner is
situated in middle of the land acquired by
the State Government and allotted for
construction
of
Government
Medical
College, the petitioner is being deprived of
for using his land, as there is no ingress and
egress for the land of the petitioner. It is
further argued that the right to property has
guaranteed under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India is being violated by
the State Authority. It is further argued that
the State Government must acquire the land
and pay the compensation to the petitioner
in accordance with the provisions contained
in the new Act of 2013.

2. The facts as stated in the writ
petition are that the petitioner is Bhumidhar
of plot no. 38 of 302, situated in Village
Daulatpur, Tehsil & District Firozabad,
measuring 0.230 Hectare and his name is
duly recorded in the revenue record. Copy
of the sale deed executed in favour of the
petitioner on 16.8.2010 had been annexed
along with the supplementary counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
no. 1. The said sale deed contains the fact
that the sale consideration of ₹4,50,000/-
was paid by the petitioner and for the
purposes of payment of stamp duty and
registration fee the value of the property
was made at ₹4,55,000/-. The said
valuation for the purposes of the payment
of stamp duty was made on the basis of the
circle rate fixed by the Collector in its list
effective from 1.8.2010. The stamp duty of
₹31,850/was paid by the petitioner.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid sale
deed, the name of the petitioner was
recorded
in
the
revenue
record
as
Bhumidhar.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the
land so purchased by the petitioner was
surrounded by acquired land. Thus, the
petitioner has no way to approach his land
and it become impossible for the petitioner to
enter in his land accordingly. The petitioner
moved an application for exchange of his
land under section 161 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act which is pending before the Competent
Authority, as such, the petitioner filed writ
petition no. 43249 of 2013, praying for a
direction to decide the application of the
petitioner for exchange of his land no.
38/302, area 0.230 Hectare with some other
land. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed
off by this Court, with a direction to the
Competent Authority to examine the request
of the petitioner for exchange of his land
within a period of six months.

5. In compliance of the aforesaid order
dated 7.8.2013 passed by this Court in writ
petition no. 43249 of 2013, the Assistant
Collector (1st Class)/Deputy Collector, Sadar,
Firozabad passed an order dated 23.9.2013,
rejecting the application of the petitioner for
exchange of his land.

6. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid
order
dated
23.9.2013,
the
petitioner
preferred Appeal No. 47 of 2012-13 under
section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before
the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. The
aforesaid appeal of the petitioner was also
rejected by an order dated 30.1.2014 passed
by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial),
Firozabad.

7. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid
order dated 30.1.2014, the petitioner filed
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Revision No. 26 of 2014 before the Board
of Revenue. The Judicial Member of Board
of Revenue by ex-parte order dated
27.5.2017 allowed the revision filed by the
petitioner and set aside the order dated
23.9.2013 passed by the Deputy Collector
and the order dated 30.1.2014 passed by the
Additional Commissioner. The Board of
Revenue further passed an order for
exchange of land of the petitioner with gata
no. 53 with similar area. The State
Government through Collector, Firozabad
filed review application in revision no. 26
of 2014 before the Board of Revenue. The
Board of Revenue by its order dated
29.3.2016 stayed the effect and operation of
the order dated 27.5.2015 passed in
revision no. 26 of 2014. The petitioner
thereafter filed his objection to review
application
and
the
matter
remained
pending before the Board of Revenue.

8. The petitioner thereafter filed WritB No.111 of 2017 (Awadesh Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & others),
challenging the order dated 29.3.2016
passed by the Board of Revenue in review
application. This Court disposed off the
writ petition with a direction to the Board
of
Revenue
to
decide
the
review
application within a period of six weeks
from the date of production of certified
copy of the order before the Board of
Revenue by an order dated 4.1.2017.

9. Thereafter the Petitioner fied WritB No. 20986 of 2017 (Awadesh Kumar
Sharma vs, State of U.P. & others),
challenging
the
communication
of
Registrar
Board
of
Revenue,
communicating the order of Chairman
Board
of
Revenue,
Lucknow
dated
2.2.2017, whereby the review application
filed by the State in Revision No. 26 of
2014 was directed to be heard by Dr. Lalit
Verma, Member Judicial at Lucknow.
Certain allegation of malafides were
levelled against Dr. Lalit Verma, Judicial
Member of Board of Revenue.

10. This Court, by an order dated
26.5.2017 disposed off the said writ
petition with following order:

"Having due regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case and without
entering
into
the
rival
contentions,
allegations and counter allegations, it is
provided that the record of the case along
with the note of the sixth respondent shall
be placed before the Chairman Board of
Revenue, Lucknow, who shall himself hear
the review petition sitting singly or in
Division Bench, after putting notice to the
parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner
undertakes
that
the
petitioner
shall
cooperate with the proceedings without
seeking unnecessary adjournments.

With
the
aforementioned
observations/directions, the writ petition is
finally disposed of."

11. Thereafter another Misc. Single
No. 22033 of 2017 (petition under 227 of
the Constitution of India) was filed, seeking
an
order
or
direction
directing
the
Chairman, Board of Revenue, Lucknow to
transfer the proceedings of Revision No. 26
of 2014 from Lucknow to Allahabad and
prohibiting
the
Chairman
Board
of
Revenue, Lucknow from hearing the
matter. The aforesaid petition was finally
dismissed by this Court with the following
direction:-

"In view of the above, this writ
petition is dismissed. The Chairman, Board
of Revenue, Lucknow shall decide the
review application in terms of the Judgment
passed by this Court at Allahabad."
2 All. Awadhesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
147

Copy of the order in this regard
shall be sent to the Chairman, Board of
Revenue, Lucknow.

At this stage, Shri Nagar submits
that it may be left open for the petitioner to
seek clarification from this Court at
Allahabad, which has decided earlier writ
petition. If such application is permissible
and maintainable, no direction is required
from this Court."

12. A perusal of the order dated
19.1.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue,
Lucknow also reveals that the direction was
issued by the Board of Revenue, Lucknow
to the District Magistrate, Firozabad and
Director Land Acquisition, U.P. Lucknow
to conduct and enquiry as to how, and in
what circumstance the land of plot no.
38/302 was not acquired. Though it is
surrounded by the acquired land.

13. The petitioner by filing writ
petition no. 2976 of 2018, challenged the
order dated 19.1.2018. The said writ
petition was also dismissed by this Court
by an order dated 19.3.2018.

14. The petitioner has filed the
present writ petition with the following
prayer:

(i) That by a suitable order or
direction issued in the nature of mandamus,
the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the
respondent to encroach upon petitioner's
Plot Nos. 38/302 and 53, situate in Village -
Daulatpur, District - Firozabad without
acquiring the land of the petitioner and
without paying compensation to him.

(ii) That by a suitable writ, order
or direction issued in the nature of
mandamus, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to
direct the respondents to pay actual value
of the land to the petitioner, according to
new land acquisition policy along with
interest and damages from 01.03.2015.

(iii) That by a suitable writ, order
or direction issued in the nature of
mandamus, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to
direct the respondents to return the land of
the
petitioner
after
removing
the
constructions raised thereon, within the
time specified by the Hon'ble Court.

(iv) Costs of the Writ Petition be
awarded to the petitioner, as against the
respondents;

(v) Any other suitable order or
direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper in the ends of justice and in the
circumstances of the case may kindly be
issued in the matter in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents in
addition to or substitution for the reliefs
claimed."

15. Initially the writ petition was filed
only with the prayer that the respondents be
restrained from encroaching the plot no.
38/302 and 53 in Village Daulatpur, District
Firozabad without acquiring the land of the
petitioner
and
without
paying
the
compensation to him.

16. Subsequently by amendment, a
prayer for payment of compensation of
actual value to the petitioner according to
the new land acquisition Policy along with
interest and damages as well as with a
prayer for return of the land to the
petitioner after removing the construction
had been made.

17. It is admitted that a notification
under section 4 with regard to the
acquisition
of
surrounding
the
land
measuring 101.01 acre of land was issued.
Out of the aforesaid 101.01 acre land,
95.60 acre of the land was recorded in
name of U.P.S.I.D.C. and remaining 06.41
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acre was recorded in name of the Collector,
Firozabad.

18. The construction of Government
Medical College over the land recorded in
the name of the Collector, Firozabad,
started in the year 2016.

There is no document on record to
establish that the land of the petitioner had
been encroached by raising construction of
any building of Medical College over the
land of the petitioner. In pursuance of the
interim order passed by this Court, an effort
was made by the District Magistrate,
Firozabad and its Subordinate Officer to
settle the dispute with the petitioner by taking
the land with the consent of the petitioner.
The meeting between the petitioner and the
State Authorities were held and the State
Authorities offered a sum of ₹1,65,60,000/-
to the petitioner as sale consideration for the
land of the petitioner.

19. The report of District Magistrate
dated 15.5.2019 has been filed as Annexure 6
to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit,
which
make
it
clear
that
the
compensation/sale consideration was offered
to the petitioner as per new Act of 2015,
treating the land of the petitioner as
agricultural land, as the land is till date
recorded in the revenue record as agricultural
land, but the petitioner claimed that he should
be paid compensation at the rate fixed for
super commercial area.

20.

After
failure
of
negotiation/settlement
carried
on
in
pursuance of the order of this Court, the State
Authorities decided not to purchase/acquire
the land of the petitioner.

21. None of the report filed by the
petitioner or the respondents make it clear
that the State Authorities or the U.P.
Rajkiya Nirman Nigam has raised any
construction over the land of the petitioner.
The
map
annexed
along
with
the
supplementary counter affidavit make it
clear that the land of the petitioner is still
vacant.

22. The petitioner has purchased the
land
by
registered
sale
deed
dated
16.8.2010 by paying sale consideration of
₹4,50,000/and has valued the land at
₹4,55,000/- for purposes of the stamp duty.
The petitioner has further make payment of
₹31,850/- as stamp duty. At the time of
purchasing the land, the petitioner was well
aware that the land is surrounded with the
acquired land and there is no ingress and
egress over the land. All his efforts made
for exchange of the land had failed, as he
was not entitled for exchange of the land as
per the provisions contained under Act and
Rules framed thereunder.

23. The petitioner has taken a chance
having full knowledge that the purchased
land is surrounded by acquired land. The
State Authorities have declined to take the
land of the petitioner, as it is not useful for
them and they have also not raised any
construction over the land in dispute.

24. The petitioner is claiming that his
land is surrounded by acquired land and it
is not useful for him. Knowing all facts and
topography of the land, the petitioner has
purchased the land at ₹4,50,000/- and paid
stamp duty of ₹31,850/-. The petitioner has
taken risk and has made investment of
₹4,81,850/-. The case of the petitioner is
that the land is not useful for him as there is
no ingress and egress. The State Authorities
cannot be directed to provide ingress and
egress to the petitioner over the land
acquired by the State Government in the
2 All. Smt. Lali Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
149
year 1988. However, in the interest of
justice, the petitioner may be compensated
by awarding amount of investment along
with interest @ 9% as contemplated under
section 73 of the Act of 2013.

25. In view of the facts stated above,
the writ petition is finally disposed off with
a direction to the respondent no. 1 to pay
consideration of ₹4,50,000/+ stamp duty of
₹31,850/- along with interest from the date
of sale deed, i.e., on 16.8.2010 till the date
the payment is made and the petitioner is
directed to execute sale deed on receipt of
aforesaid
amount
in
favour
of
the
respondent no.1.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 149
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ C No. 900 of 2023

Smt. Lali Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dinesh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anilesh Tewari, Bina Kishore, Uma
Shankar Sahai

(A)
Election
-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 - Sections 12-C
& 12 C (6) - Application for questioning
the
elections
-
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Panchayat Raj (Election of Members,
Pradhan and Up-Pradhans Rules, 1994 -
Rule 4 - Nirvachan Adhikari (Returning
Officer) - it is the Returning Officer who is
appointed by the District Magistrate for
every election to perform the function
required to be performed under Chapter II
of the Rules, 1997 - to do all acts and
things as may be necessary for effectually
conducting the election in the manner
provided in the act and the rules.(Para -
27)

Election for post of Gram Pradhan - in question -
challenged by petitioner on various grounds -
Matgarna Paryavekshak only recounted two
bundles of votes - against direction issued by
the Returning Officer - Election Tribunal directed
for recounting of votes - disposed of election
petition - petitioner filed a writ petition - Court
relegated him to remedy of revision - revisional
Court allowed revision - set aside order of
Election Tribunal - restoring election petition to
its original number - disposing of it in
accordance with law. (Para -18)

(B) Election - Rule 4 of the Rules 1994 -
under control of Returning Officer - duty
of Matgarna Paryavekshak to do all acts
and things for effectual conduct of the
election - on direction of Returning Officer
- Matgarna Paryavekshak was required to carry
out directions of Returning Officer - all votes
should have been counted as per directions of
Returning Officer - same not having been done -
specific ground taken in election petition -
Election Tribunal was correct in directing for recounting of all votes by means of the impugned
orders.(Para -28)

HELD:-No illegality or infirmity with the reasons
recorded by Election Tribunal or the revisional
Court while directing for a re-counting. Grounds
taken by the petitioner rejected. No case for
interference made out. (Para - 34,35)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Uday Chand Vs Surat Singh & anr. , (2009)
10 SCC 170,

2. Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs Venkata Ram Reddy
Reddygari & anr. , (2014) 5 SCC 312

3. Amit Narain Rai Vs St. of U.P & ors. , Writ-C
No. 63380 of 2011