# Bhagwat Prasad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 100
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-12-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53920 of 2014
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwat-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43069
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri A.P. Paul, Sri B.B. Paul
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
ActSection 42-A-correction of map after
notification under section 52-whether
after final publication of consolidation
operation such application maintainable
?-held
defence
of
Section
52(2)
presumptions of pendency-not availablein view of Section 27 of Land Revenue
Act-Correction
application
not
maintainable-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-13
Upon consideration of the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties
and the judgments cited by them, I am
constrained to hold that the Division
Bench judgment relied upon by learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
has
no
application in the facts and circumstances
of the instant case. In the case cited, it
appears that the final orders passed by the
consolidation authorities had not been
implemented. This is not the situation in
the case at hand. Here the orders were
duly implemented and the case of the
petitioner is only that the incorporation
was not correct and required correction.
In view of sub section 3 of section 27, any
incorrect incorporation has to be corrected
under the provisions of the U.P. Land
Revenue
Act,
if
the
consolidation
operations have come to a close.
Case Law discussed:
1993 RD 457; 2003(94) RD 90; 1979 RD 76;
1981 RD 77; 1989 RD 201; 1995 RD 264.

## Text

100
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
grant of compassionate appointment. The
object with which a married daughter has
been
excluded
from
the
expression
"Family" is based on an intelligible
differentia and the dependency should be a
yardstick
for
consideration
of
compassionate
appointment
and
is
commensurate with the sole object of grant
of compassionate appointment. It is in these
circumstances, the married daughter has not
been included in the expression "Family"
under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.
16.
However for transfer of retail
licence, the criteria is "inheritance" whereas
in the matter of grant of compassionate
appointment, it is "dependency" and hence
ratio of judgment of Bombay High
Court(supra) applies in the facts and
circumstances of that particular case and is
not applicable in the facts of the present case.
17. So far as the judgments in R.
Jayamma(supra) and Manjula (supra) are
concerned, it is found that in both the
cases, the Karnataka High Court found
that the married daughter was financially
dependent upon her parents for the reason
that in R. Jayamma(supra) the husband of
the petitioner (who was a married
daughter) has become mentally deranged.
In Manjula(supra) the petitioner has
become widow after filing of the petition.
In paragraph 10 of the judgment in
Manjula(supra) it was observed that no
married daughter can be denied of an
entry into the service on compassionate
employment just because she is married.
There may be cases whether the married
woman may be living with her parents
notwithstanding her marriage for various
reasons and there may be cases where
married women would be dependent on
their parents on account of their individual
circumstances. Thus, the Court in those
cases, may read down the rule of
dependency in the facts and circumstances
of the case and issue a direction to provide
employment
to
dependent
married
daughters subject to satisfaction of their
dependency in the given circumstances.
18. Thus, from the careful reading of
these reports, it is found that the direction
was given therein in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of those cases and the
Court was of the opinion that the
dependent daughters cannot be excluded
merely because of their marital status.
19. As has been discussed above,
one dependent family member of the
deceased
employee
is
entitled
for
compassionate
appointment.
The
petitioner has failed to establish that she
was
dependent
upon
the
deceased
employee, as admittedly her husband is
alive and he is a hail and hearty person, it
cannot be accepted that the petitioner was
fully dependent upon the deceased
employee at the time of his death.
20. In view of above discussion, the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief in
the present writ petition. The writ petition
is accordingly dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53920 of 2014
Bhagwat Prasad
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel
for
the
Petitioner:
1 All] Bhagwat Prasad Vs. State of & Ors.
101
Sri D.P. Singh, Sri S.S. Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.P. Paul, Sri B.B. Paul
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
ActSection 42-A-correction of map after
notification under section 52-whether
after final publication of consolidation
operation such application maintainable
?-held
defence
of
Section
52(2)
presumptions of pendency-not availablein view of Section 27 of Land Revenue
Act-Correction
application
not
maintainable-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-13
Upon consideration of the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties
and the judgments cited by them, I am
constrained to hold that the Division
Bench judgment relied upon by learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
has
no
application in the facts and circumstances
of the instant case. In the case cited, it
appears that the final orders passed by the
consolidation authorities had not been
implemented. This is not the situation in
the case at hand. Here the orders were
duly implemented and the case of the
petitioner is only that the incorporation
was not correct and required correction.
In view of sub section 3 of section 27, any
incorrect incorporation has to be corrected
under the provisions of the U.P. Land
Revenue
Act,
if
the
consolidation
operations have come to a close.
Case Law discussed:
1993 RD 457; 2003(94) RD 90; 1979 RD 76;
1981 RD 77; 1989 RD 201; 1995 RD 264.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.)
1. Heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.S.
Shukla for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Paul
for the contesting respondents.
2. The petition has been filed
challenging the orders passed by the
Consolidation Officer and the Additional
District Magistrate (Kanoon Vyavastha),
Mathura.
3.
It has been submitted by learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
in
proceedings for allotment of chaks, three
chaks were allotted to the petitioner. A
corresponding map was also prepared. In
this final consolidation map, the area of the
petitioner's chak was shown to be less than
the actual area.
4.
Aggrieved by such reduction in
area of this chak in the final consolidation
map, the petitioner filed an application for
correction of the same under section 42A of
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
5. An objection was filed by the
respondent no. 3 alleging therein that the
application under section 42A was not
maintainable and that an application
under section 28 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act had already been filed by
the petitioner for the same relief.
6. Thereafter, the report was called
for and was submitted by the Assistant
Consolidation Officer stating therein that
the shape of Plot No. 1826 was liable to
be corrected.
7.
The
Consolidation
Officer
rejected the application of the petitioner
by his order dated 20.12.2013. The order
of the Consolidation Officer has been
affirmed in revision vide order dated
9.9.2014.
Hence
this
writ
petition
102
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
challenging the orders dated 20.12.2013
and 9.9.2014.
8. At the stage, it would be relevant
to note that although the order dated
9.9.2014 passed by the Additional District
Magistrate (Kanoon Vyavastha), Mathura
is under challenge, the said authority has
not been impleaded as a respondent in the
writ petition.
9. The only issue for consideration
in the writ petition is as to whether the
application filed by the petitioner under
section 42A for correction of the final
consolidation map after issuance of
notification under section 52(1) of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, was
maintainable or not.
10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that such an
application was maintainable and he has
placed reliance on the decision reported in
1993 RD 457, Mukhtar Vs. DDC,
Azamgarh and others, more specifically
paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said
judgment. This judgment, after noticing
the scheme of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act and the Rules framed
thereunder has held that the duty of
revising the revenue records is cast on the
consolidation authorities and it is for such
authorities to implement the orders passed
under the Act. It has further been held that
there is no requirement in this scheme of
the Act for a party to apply for execution
within a specified period of limitation, as
is the position under the Civil Procedure
Code. It has therefore been held that till
the order passed by the consolidation
authorities are not implemented, as
contemplated under the Act and the
Rules, the proceedings under the Act
would deemed to be pending. On the
aforesaid reasoning, it has been held that
such proceedings would be deemed to be
pending on the date of denotification of
the village and, therefore, the orders
passed during consolidation operations
can be implemented in view of section 52
(2) of the Act.
11. Learned counsel for the
respondents on the other hand has relied
upon the judgement reported in 2003 (94)
RD 90, Ghamari Vs. D.D.C. Ballia.
12. Apart from the judgments cited
by the parties, there are several Division
Bench decisions reported in 1979 RD 76,
Ghafoor Vs. Addl. Commissioner Lucknow
and others, 1981 RD 77, Ali Khan Vs. Ram
Prasad and others, and decisions by the
Single Judge reported in 1989 RD 201,
Ram Niwas and others Vs. Consolidation
Officer and others, 1995 RD 264, Nanhki
Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others, which hold that the provisions of
section 42A of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act cannot be invoked once the
consolidation operations in the village have
come to a close by a notification under
section 52 (1) of the Act.
13. Upon consideration of the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and the judgments cited by
them, I am constrained to hold that the
Division Bench judgment relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner has no
application in the facts and circumstances
of the instant case. In the case cited, it
appears that the final orders passed by the
consolidation authorities had not been
implemented. This is not the situation in
the case at hand. Here the orders were
duly implemented and the case of the
petitioner is only that the incorporation
was not correct and required correction.
1 All] A. Pavitra Vs. Union of India & Ors.
103
In view of sub section 3 of section 27, any
incorrect incorporation has to be corrected
under the provisions of the U.P. Land
Revenue
Act,
if
the
consolidation
operations have come to a close.
14. Accordingly and for the reasons
given above, I find no illegality in the
impugned orders.
15. The writ petition is devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60338 of 2014
alongwith W.P. NO. 60738 of 2014
A. Pavitra
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mrs. Swati Agarwal
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Pratik J. Nagar
Right to Information Act-2005-Section21(h)-Public authority-whether the council
for Indian School certificate examination is
public authority to provide information
under R.T.I?-held-'No'.
Held: Para-17 & 25
17.
In view of the aforesaid observations,
this Court finds that the Board is not covered
within the definition clause 2(h), and
consequently, it is not under any obligation
to provide the information, as sought by the
petitioners, under the RTI Act.
25. Thus, in view of the discussions
aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion
that the respondent Board is under no
obligation to provide the answer scripts
to the petitioners, in respect of the
examination conducted by the Board,
and the relief prayed for is not liable to
be granted to them. Consequently, the
writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Case Law discussed:
[(2011) 8 SCC 497]; [1989 (2) SCC 691];
[2002 5 SCC 111]; [2013 (136) FLR 86]; [2013
(1) SCC 745]; [(2012) 13 SCC 61]; [(1984) 4
SCC 27]; 2008 (72) AIC 555.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)
1.

The
question
requiring
consideration of this Court, in the present
writ petition, is as to whether "The
Council for Indian School Certificate
Examinations", (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Board') is a public authority, in terms
of
Section
2(h)
of
the
Right
to
Information
Act,
2005,
(hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act') ?, and whether it is
obliged, in law, to provide the information
sought by the students, who have
appeared in the examination conducted by
the Board ?
2. The petitioners are students, who
are dissatisfied with the marks awarded to
them by the Board, in the examinations
conducted by the said Board. Applications
were, accordingly, moved under the Right
to Information Act with the prayer that
petitioners be supplied copies of the
answer scripts, which was not bestowed
any consideration, and consequently, the
present writ petition has been filed for a
direction upon the Board, to provide the
information sought under the RTI Act.
3.
I have heard Mrs. Swati Agrawal
and Sri Atul Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
for the petitioners; Sri J. Nagar, learned