# C/M Pt. Janardan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani Sri Durga Maa v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1217
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-06
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-pt-janardan-mani-sri-krishnadeo-mani-sri-durga-maa-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44647
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C., S.C.

A. Committee of Management- Petitioner
institution
recognized
-approved
by
respective universities - rejection of
grant in aid - for clerical defects - badinformation to remove defects - received
by Petitioner college after cut-off dateimpugned order quashed.

Writ Petition allowed (E-9)

List of cases cited : -

1.Committee of Management, Shri Dravi Nath
Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya & anr. Vs St. of
U.P. & Ors., (2019) (1) ADJ 513
2.St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Pawan Kumar Divedi &
anr., (2014) (9) SCC 692
3.Paripurna Nand Tripathi & ors. Vs St. of U.P.
& ors., (2015) (3) ADJ 567 (DB)

## Text

3 All. C/M Pt. Janardan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani Sri Durga Maa Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1217
settlement or on any other basis. The land
of the Gaon Sabha cannot be occupied
otherwise than in accordance with a
procedure established by law. In absence
of any evidence being placed or relied
upon in this respect, the Court cannot
possibly recognise the existence of a legal
right inhering in the respondents to
occupy the land.

15. The reliance placed by learned
counsel
on
Barendra
is
also
misconceived since the observations as
entered there would only have application
where competing claims under subsection
(4F)
are
placed
for
the
consideration of the State respondents. In
the absence of one of the claimants being
entitled to the benefits of sub-section (4F) and having failed to establish a lawful
right to possess the land belonging to the
Gaon Sabha, the principles as enunciated
in Barendra would have no application.
In fact and as is evident from the
observations made by the learned Judge
in Barendra, the necessity to obtain a
formal declaration would arise only when
competing sides claim to be in possession
from before the cut off date prescribed in
sub-section
(4-F).
The
decision
in
Barendra must therefore necessarily be
understood in that context.

16. In any case, this Court finds itself
unable to extend the principles propounded
therein to the facts of the present case where
the private respondents neither claim the
benefits of sub-section (4F) nor have they
established any lawful or legal right to be in
occupation of land belonging to the Gaon
Sabha.

17. Accordingly and for the reasons
aforenoted, this writ petition is allowed.
The impugned orders dated 7 April 1999
and 23 December 2002, are hereby
quashed and aside.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1217

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No.- 13179 of 2016

C/M Pt. Janardan Mani Sri Krishnadeo
Mani Sri Durga Maa ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kushmondeya Shahi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.C.

A. Committee of Management- Petitioner
institution
recognized
-approved
by
respective universities - rejection of
grant in aid - for clerical defects - badinformation to remove defects - received
by Petitioner college after cut-off dateimpugned order quashed.

Writ Petition allowed (E-9)

List of cases cited : -

1.Committee of Management, Shri Dravi Nath
Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya & anr. Vs St. of
U.P. & Ors., (2019) (1) ADJ 513
2.St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Pawan Kumar Divedi &
anr., (2014) (9) SCC 692
3.Paripurna Nand Tripathi & ors. Vs St. of U.P.
& ors., (2015) (3) ADJ 567 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. As per the Government Orders
dated
7.2.2014
and
11.2.2014,
the
petitioner applied for grant-in-aid. After
the applications were received by the
State Level Committee, the Deputy
Director of Education (Sanskrit), Uttar
Pradesh, Allahabad referred the matter on
19.1.2015
to
the
Registrar
of
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
University,
Varanasi for the verification of the
recognition
etc.
of
the
petitionerinstitution. It may be noted that the
Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and
11.2.2014 were with regard to such
institutions which were involved in the
teaching of Sanskrit and were approved
by
their
relevant
Universities.
On
24.3.2015, the State Level Committee
after getting the certificates of the
approval from the University forwarded
the list of such institutions which
according to it were qualified for getting
grant-in-aid. This list was published on
1.4.2015 but the name of the petitionerinstitution did not find place in it. On
1.4.2015 itself another list was published
which displayed the names of such
institutions which had though been
recommended had to provide certain
further data and the list was called a
"restricted recognition list". The petitioner
had throughout been under the impression
that it had fulfilled all the conditions
which were required by the Government
Orders dated 7.2.2014 and 11.2.2014 and,
therefore, it represented its case to the
Member Secretary, Secondary Education,
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. When no action
was taken on the representation, the
petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ
Petition No.45483 of 2015 which was
disposed of on 13.8.2015 with a direction
that the representation filed by the
petitioner be decided. Ultimately in
compliance of the order of the High Court
dated 13.8.2015, the representation of the
petitioner was rejected after a decision
was
taken
on
4.3.2016. Aggrieved
thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant
writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that if the impugned order dated
4.3.2016 is perused, it showed that as per the
Government Order dated 7.2.2014 : (i) the
applicant-institution had to be a recognised
institution; (ii) it had to see that the
endowment fund with the recognising
University was there; and (iii) the Committee
of Management which was running the
institution had given its consent that the
college be included in grant-in-aid. As per the
order dated 4.3.2016 the endowment fund
was not to be found and also the consent of
the Committee of Management was not on
record. The order also discloses, learned
counsel for the petitioner states that the
institution
was
informed
before
the
"Restricted List" was published on 1.5.2015
that the deficiencies had to be rectified by
31.1.2015. However, he stated that as the
communication by which the deficiencies
were informed to the petitioner itself reached
the petitioner-institution on 12.2.2015, the
deficiencies could not have been cured by the
fixed cut-off date of 31.1.2015.

3. So far as the recognition part is
concerned,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner states that the University had in
its
verification
informed
the
State
Government that the petitioner-institution
was recognised and this was clear from
the list which the University had sent on
12.3.2015. The name of the petitionerinstitution was found at Serial No.39.

4. So far as the defect with regard to
the endowment fund was concerned,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
3 All. C/M Pt. Janardan Mani Sri Krishnadeo Mani Sri Durga Maa Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1219
that the College had submitted the
endowment fund of Rs.3000/- and,
therefore, the defect had very much been
removed. Further the consent of the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
institution was also very much there on
record.

5. The ground taken in paragraph 9
of
the
Counter Affidavit
filed
by
respondent no.5 that the defect was not
removed has been repelled in paragraph 7
of
the
Rejoinder
Affidavit
dated
18.2.2016 and it has been submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
wrongly the petitioner-institution was
placed in a category of schools which had
not fulfilled the conditions of the
Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and
11.2.2014. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further states that the ground
taken in the impugned order dated
4.3.2016 that none of the institutions
which were placed in the list of schools
which had defects in their applications
were taken in the grant-in-aid list was
also not available to the respondents as
the record showed that many other
institutions were taken in the grant-in-aid
list which were in fact earlier in the list
which had the names of such institutions
whose applications had defects. Learned
counsel further states that the petitioner
could not remove the defects before the
cut-off date i.e. before 31.1.2015 as the
information given to the petitioner to
remove the defects itself was received by
the communication dated 12.2.2015.
Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that
the grounds taken in the impugned order
dated 4.3.2016 were not tenable in the
eyes of law and, therefore, the same be
quashed and the respondent no.1 be
issued a writ of mandamus to include the
name of the petitioner-institution in the
list of institutions which were to be
granted aid.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also relied upon a decision of this Court
in Committee of Management, Shri
Dravi
Nath
Purva
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. reported in 2019 (1) ADJ 513 and
submitted that when the petitionerinstitution was recognised and all the
other formalities were completed by the
petitioner-institution then the grant-in-aid
should not have been denied. Learned
counsel further submitted that only to
deprive the petitioner-institution of the
right to get aid and for certain other
oblique reasons, the aid was denied and
the impugned order was thereafter passed.

7. Learned Standing Counsel,
however, submitted that the petitioner did
not fulfill the requirements of the
Government Orders dated 7.2.2014 and
11.2.2014 at the relevant point and
subsequently also when the defects were
removed, they were so done after the cutoff date.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel, I am of the considered view that
when the institution was recognised and
the
other
formalities
namely
the
submission of endowment fund and the
submission
of
the
consent
of
the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
institution were there then the State
Authorities should not have deprived the
petitioner-institution of the grant-in-aid.
The rejection on the ground that the
defects were removed after the cut-off
date
i.e.
31.1.2015
appears
to
be
irrelevant for two reasons : (i) the defects
were clerical in nature and should not
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have weighed on the minds of the
Authorities; and (ii) as has been stated by
the petitioner, the information to remove
the defects itself was received by the
College on 12.2.2015, then under no
circumstances,
could
the
petitionerinstitution have removed the defects
before the cut-off date i.e. before
31.1.2015. What is more, the endeavour
of the State Government should be to
grant aid to the institutions which are
recognised and running classes properly
and also taking examinations of the
students who were studying therein.

9. Right to education
is a
fundamental right as has been enshrined
under Article 21-A of the Constitution of
India. Instead of boosting education, the
State Government appears to be behaving
in a most arbitrary manner to deprive
institutions of the aids which are due to
them. In State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Pawan
Kumar Divedi & Anr. reported in 2014
(9) SCC 692 and in Paripurna Nand
Tripathi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. reported in 2015 (3) ADJ 567 (DB)
it has been held that it was the
fundamental right of every child to get
proper education.

10. Under such circumstances, the
order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the State
of Uttar Pradesh is quashed and a writ of
mandamus is being issued that the
petitioner-institution be brought in grantin-aid list forthwith and the grant be
provided to the College within three
months from the date of presentation of a
certified copy of this order.

11. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
----------
(2019)11ILR A1220

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

Writ C No. 14817 of 1998

Jawahar Lal Jaiswal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Awasthi, Sri Ashish Jaiswal, Sri
Mansoor Ahmad, Sri Rahul Sripat, Sri
Sandeep Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shashi Prakash Rai

A.
Land
Law-Urban
Land
(Ceiling
&
Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 10 - no
documents to prove -Petitioner's possession
on excess land ever taken-neither voluntary
surrender u/s 10 (5) nor forceful possession
u/s
10
(6);
only
District
Magistrate
authorized-to
take
possession-proved
possession of Petitioner-benefit of Section 3
(a) of Repeal Act, 1999.

Writ Petition allowed (E-9)
List of cases cited: -
1. Shiv Ram Singh Vs St. Of U.P. & ors.,
(2015) (5) AWC 4918
2. St. Of Assam Vs Bhaskar Jyoti Sharma &
ors., (2015) (5) 321
3. St. Of U.P. Vs Hari Ram, (2013) (4) SCC
280
4. Mohd. Suhaif & anr. Vs St. Of U.P. & ors.,
(2019) (5) ADJ 764 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)