# Awdhesh Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-11-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8309 of 1990
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/awdhesh-singh-v-state-of-u-p-40853
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.
Act-Section
122-BEviction
for
Graon
Sabha
Landproceeding initiated after 30 years-even
if the allotment not found valid-due to in
ordinate delay-can not be evicted-nor
the damage more than the market rate
can be imposed.

Held: Para 3

In view of this, even though I agree that
valid allotment was not fully proved by
the petitioner still due to inordinate
delay of 30 years in initiating the
proceedings for eviction, award of the
damages is the appropriate relief instead
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
of eviction. The amount of Rs.11400/-
awarded as damages by the impugned
order will be more than the market value
of the land at the time of occupation i.e.
either 1958 or 1961.
Case law discussed:
2005 RD (98) 741

## Text

1 All] Awdhesh Singh V. State of U.P.
253
4.
That the prosecution story is not
corroborated by the spot inspect note and
the site plan.
5.
That the alleged motive is absolutely
false, baseless because the previous
election was not contested by any of the
first informant side, therefore, there was
no question of enmity.
6.
That the applicant is a peaceful
person. He is not a previous convict and
not wanted in any other case. Therefore,
he may be released on bail.

6. In reply to the above contentions
it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. ad
the learned counsel for the complainant:

I.
That the alleged occurrence had
taken place in a broad daylight. Its F.I.R.
has been lodged within 1,1/2 hours. The
distance of the police station was about 5
k.m. Specific role of causing injury by
rifle has been assigned to the applicant. In
this case two persons have lost their lives.
The injuries were caused by the fire arm
and several persons are injured.
II.
That the applicant is a very powerful
man and the first informant and injured
persons belong to scheduled cast, weaker
section of the society and the applicant
and other co-accused persons have
committed the alleged offence without
any reason, in order to establish his
supremacy. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he shall temper with
evidence. Therefore, he may not be
released on bail

7. Considering the facts that the
alleged occurrence had taken place in
broad day light, F.I.R. was promptly
lodged, role of causing injury by rifle has
been assigned to the applicant, two
persons have lost their lives, several
persons are injured, the cause of death
was due to fire arm injury and there are
injured
witnesses
to
support
the
prosecution story, the gravity of offence is
too
much
and
other
facts
and
circumstances of the case and submission
made by both side, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, the
applicant
is
not
entitled
for
bail.
Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

8. Accordingly this application is
rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8309 of 1990

Sukhdeo

...Petitioner
Versus
Collector, Banda & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.D. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.
Act-Section
122-BEviction
for
Graon
Sabha
Landproceeding initiated after 30 years-even
if the allotment not found valid-due to in
ordinate delay-can not be evicted-nor
the damage more than the market rate
can be imposed.

Held: Para 3

In view of this, even though I agree that
valid allotment was not fully proved by
the petitioner still due to inordinate
delay of 30 years in initiating the
proceedings for eviction, award of the
damages is the appropriate relief instead
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
of eviction. The amount of Rs.11400/-
awarded as damages by the impugned
order will be more than the market value
of the land at the time of occupation i.e.
either 1958 or 1961.
Case law discussed:
2005 RD (98) 741

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U.Khan J.)

1. This writ petition arises out of
proceedings under section 122-B of
U.P.Z.A.L.R Act. Property in dispute is
comprised in Gaon Sabha plot No. 528,
area 2 Bigha 13 Biswas. The proceedings
were initiated in the form of case No. 178
of 1987-88 Gaon Sabha Vs. Sukhdev. The
petitioner pleaded that Gaon Sabha had
validly allotted the land in dispute to him
on 28.10.1961. He also filed copy of
proceeding register of Gaon Sabha dated
28.10.1961. He also filed copy of form
No. 59. Against the land in dispute, name
of petitioner was mentioned in column 4
since 1366 fasli (1.7.1958 to 30.6.1959).
Column
4
contains
the
names
of
unauthorised occupants. In the notice 49
Ka possession of petitioner was shown
from 1395 fasli (1.7.1987 to 30.6.1988).
Tehsildar/ Assistant Collector gave notice
to petitioner on 23.3.1988. Tehsildar
through order dated 27.7.1988 directed
eviction
of
petitioner
and
imposed
damages of Rs.11400/-. Against the said
order petitioner filed revision which was
registered as Case No. 24. Collector
Banda
dismissed
the
revision
on
25.1.1990, hence this writ petition.

2. Collector held that petitioner was
in possession from 1366 to 1395 fasli.
Regarding the plea of valid allotment,
Collector held that original Patta was not
filed by the petitioner.

3. There are some authorities of this
court which have held that there is no
limitation to initiate the proceedings by
Gaon Sabha for eviction of persons who
are in unauthorised occupation of its land.
Still silence of Gaon Sabha for about 30
years was very strange. Even if there is no
limitation
for
starting
the
eviction
proceedings still delay of about 30 years
is sufficient to refuse to pass the order of
eviction.
In
certain
cases
even
if
possession of some one is unauthorised
still eviction is not necessary or proper
relief and award of damages in lieu of
eviction is the appropriate relief. In
respect of small pieces of land of Gaon
Sabha over which the occupants have
constructed their houses since long I have
held that award of damages is the proper
remedy in lieu of eviction vide Bhudaee
Vs. Collector 2005(98) RD 741. Gaon
Sabha is required to allot the land to the
needy
persons
in
accordance
with
preference and proceedings provided
under section 195/198 U.P.Z.A.L.R Act.
Accordingly, if a person is in possession
for more than 12 years, instead of eviction
award of damage is the appropriate relief.
In view of this, even though I agree that
valid allotment was not fully proved by
the petitioner still due to inordinate delay
of 30 years in initiating the proceedings
for eviction, award of the damages is the
appropriate relief instead of eviction. The
amount
of
Rs.11400/-
awarded
as
damages by the impugned order will be
more than the market value of the land at
the time of occupation i.e. either 1958 or
1961.

4. Accordingly impugned orders are
set-aside in respect of eviction. Petitioner
is directed to pay the awarded damages of
Rs.11400/-
within
six
months.
On
payment of these damages, land in dispute
1 All] R.P. Garg V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another
255
shall stand settled with him. However if
damages are not paid within six months
then this order shall stand automatically
vacated and writ petition shall stand
dismissed. Damages shall be deposited
before S.D.O concerned for being kept in
concerned Gaon Sabha fund.

Writ petition is accordingly disposed
of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8502 of 1989

R.P. Garg

...Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.S. Diwakar
Sri V.K. Agarwal
Sri I.M. Kushwaha
Sri Rahul Sahai
Sri H.P. Pandey
Sri V.K. Verman

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.R. Agarwal
Sri Vivek Ratan

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Termination Order-appointment on one
year probation with stipulation that
confirmation of service shall be in
writing-even after expiry of one year
neither probation period extended-nor
confirmation order passed-performance
found excellent-held shall be deemed
automatically
confirmed-termination
held-illegal-in view of standing orderservices stood confirmed hence without
disciplinary proceeding without show
cause notices-termination not proper.

Held: Para 8

he impugned order has to be judged in
the light of what has been contained in it
and not on the basis of the stand or the
defence taken in the counter affidavit.
The respondents, by counter affidavit
cannot supplement reasons which are
not contained in the impugned order.
The above view is fortified by the
decision of the Supreme Court in case of
Mohinder Singh Gill & another Vs. The
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
& Ors. AIR 1978 SC 851. The Apex Court
in the said decision ruled that when
statutory functionary makes an order
based on certain grounds, its validity
must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit
or otherwise. In view of the above it is
not possible to consider the defence
taken by the respondents in the counter
affidavit
and
to
read
the
reasons
mentioned therein for terminating the
services of the petitioner to be part of
the impugned order. Therefore, as the
services of the petitioner under the
Standing Orders stood confirmed he was
not liable to be terminated for the
reasons recorded in the impugned order
by treating him to be on probation.
Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings
were initiated against the petitioner.
Accordingly,
the
impugned
order
is
unsustainable
and
is
liable
to
be
quashed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1973 SC-2650
AIR 1978 SC-851
2006 (4) ADJ-772

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. The petitioner was appointed as
Electrician Gr. III with Indian Oil
Corporation
Ltd.
vide
letter
of
appointment dated 21.4.1986. The said