# Centre for Management Technology, Gautam Buddha Nagar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 592
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1647 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/centre-for-management-technology-gautam-buddha-nagar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52953
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assigned to the consolidation authorities
under the Act the jurisdiction of the civil
court to entertain the suit in respect of the
said matter was expressly barred by
Section 49 of the Act and the suit of the
appellant was rightly dismissed on that
ground.'

11. The argument that revenue
entry in the name of the father should have
been treated as in representative capacity
for the sons is misleading. Whether the
father was karta and manager of the family
and as such could be recorded in
representative capacity for all co-owners in
the family was also a question of title which
fell within exclusive jurisdiction of the
authorities under the Act."

25. The jurisdiction of the civil
court, therefore, is clearly barred as it is
evident that subject-matter of both the suits
is agricultural lands only. It is not,
therefore, necessary for us to go into the
question with regard to the effect of a
prayer made in a suit for setting aside the
deed of gift in terms of Section 31 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 or otherwise.

34. What, therefore, in our opinion,
bars the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court
into examining the nature of parties' right,
title and interest in the land in dispute is the
fact that the defendant, who propounds the
Will to establish a life estate for the
plaintiff, never did so during consolidation
proceedings, when he could and ought have
done it, attracting the bar under Section 49
of the CH Act. While the suit would not be
barred for the relief of partition in
accordance with the determination of
shares
made
by
the
Consolidation
Authorities,
reflected
in
the
final
consolidation forms and other proceedings,
it would not be open to the Revenue Court
to investigate and determine the nature and
extent of the plaintiff's title on the basis of
Will dated 10.01.1996 that the defendant
propounds to limit the plaintiff's interest to
a life estate in the land in dispute. The
Revenue Court's jurisdiction to investigate
the extent of the plaintiff's right and title to
the land in dispute, based on the Will
propounded by the defendant, would be
barred by Section 49 of the CH Act.

35. As already remarked, the suit for
partition of the parties' shares in accordance
with the determination made by the
Consolidation Authorities can proceed and
a final decree too can be passed in
accordance with the preliminary decree.
The Board of Revenue has, therefore,
committed no error in restoring the Trial
Court's decree.

36. No other point was pressed.

37. In the result, this petition fails and
stands dismissed.

38. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 592
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 1647 of 2025
& other cases

Centre
for
Management
Technology,
Gautam Buddha Nagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
(i) Whether the claim of the petitioner
institutions for reimbursement of fee and
scholarship for the academic sessions 2013-14,
2014-15 and 2016-17 was barred by limitation;
12 All. Centre for Management Technology, Gautam Buddha Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
593
(ii) Whether the objection of lapse of budgetary
allocation and absence of claims by students
disentitles the petitioners from reimbursement;
and
(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to
interest on delayed payment of scholarship and
fee reimbursement and, if so, at what rate.

HEADNOTE
Uttar Pradesh Anusuchit / Anusuchit Janjati /
Samanya Varg / Alpsankhyak / Pichhdi Jati
Dashmottar Chhatravritti Yojna, 2012 - Fee
reimbursement and scholarship - Writ petitions
seeking
payment
of
scholarship
and
reimbursement of fee for academic sessions
2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 - Scholarship
withheld on the ground of pendency of inquiry -
Inquiry admittedly concluded and no allegation
established against the petitioners - Authorities
acknowledging liability and raising demand for
allocation - Subsequent rejection of claim by
State Government - Objections raised regarding
limitation,
lapse
of
budgetary
allocation,
absence of student claims and scheme providing
for transfer of scholarship to students' bank
accounts - Claim of interest on delayed
payment.
HELD:
Claim of the petitioners was held not
barred
by
limitation.
District
Social
Welfare Officer had sent letters stating
that a demand for allocation of the
amount had been raised and that as soon
as the amount is received from the State
Government,
the
amount
will
be
transferred to the bank accounts of the
students, which amounted to a clear and
categorical admission regarding liability of
payment. Under the scheme, the limitation
period would start running after the
scholarship amount is transferred to the
bank accounts of the students, which
admittedly was not done and therefore
the claim has not become barred by
limitation and is still continuing.
Objection
regarding
lapse
of
budgetary
allocation rejected. State Government ought to
have made payment of the amount of
scholarship as per the prescribed timeline and
the delay was not attributable to the
petitioners. Denial of payment on the ground
of delay, when the inquiry stood concluded and
no one was found guilty, would amount to
punishing the petitioners for a wrong
which has not been committed by them,
which is impermissible. It is a basic principle
of dispensation of justice that no person
can be punished for a wrong which he has
not committed.
Mere fact that students have not come forward
to challenge non-payment of scholarship money
will not take away the petitioners' right to claim
payment of the amount of fee, when the
petitioners had taken admission of the students
under the scheme without charging any fee,
imparted education for the full course duration
and the students had completed their studies.
Petitioners were suffering losses due to nonpayment of scholarship to the students, who in
turn would have paid the amount to the
petitioners.
On the question of interest, held that interest
is not a penalty or punishment at all, but
is the normal accretion on capital. When a
person is deprived of the use of his money to
which he is legitimately entitled, he has a right
to be compensated for the deprivation.
However, the claim of compound interest at the
rate of 18% per annum was held to be not
justified. Interest directed to be paid at the
maximum rates prevailing in nationalised
banks on fixed deposits. Impugned office
memorandum dated 15.01.2025 quashed and
writ of mandamus issued directing payment of
fee reimbursement along with interest. Writ
petitions allowed. [Paras 15, 16, 17, 21, 22,
23 & 24] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Dr. Purnima Advani v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
(2025) 7 SCC 269;

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Anusuchit / Anusuchit Janjati /
Samanya Varg / Alpsankhyak / Pichhdi Jati
Dashmottar Chhatravritti Yojna, 2012

List of Keyword
Scholarship; Fee reimbursement; Limitation;
Acknowledgment of liability; Continuing cause of
action; Budgetary allocation lapsed; Restitution;
Interest as accretion on capital; State default.

CASE ARISING FROM
From
the
office
memorandum
dated
15.01.2025
passed
by
the
State
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government rejecting reimbursement of
fee and scholarship.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Apoorva Tewari, Shivang
Tiwari, Vinod Kumar Singh, Balbir Singh, Paavan
Awasthi.
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Apoorva Tewari, the
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.K.
Khare, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. and
perused the records.

2. The petitioner-C-MAT Business
School has filed petition bearing Writ-C No.
8584 (M/S) of 2018 and Centre for
Management and Technology has filed Writ
Petition No. 8585 (M/S) of 2018 seeking
issuance
of
a
Writ
of
Mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to make
payment
of
scholarship
and
fee
reimbursement to them for the students
admitted in the institution for the courses
mentioned in para 4 of the writ petitions for
the academic sessions 2013-14, 2014-15 and
2016-17 in consonance with the provisions
contained in Uttar Pradesh Anushuchit /
Anusuchit Janjati / Samanya Varg /
Alpsankhyak / Pichhdi Jati Dashmottar
Chhatravritti Yojna, 2012.

3. On 28.09.2021, an order was passed
in Writ Petition Nos. 8584 & 8585 recording
that the fee reimbursement for the session
2013-14 had not been made to the petitioners
without assigning any reason. In regard to
academic sessions 2014-15 and 2016-17,
show cause notices had been issued to the
petitioners and they had submitted replies to
the notices but no decision had been taken
thereon. The learned Standing Counsel was
granted time to seek instructions in the matter
whether the inquiry had been concluded and
why the money allocated for the year 201314 had not been paid to the petitioners. On
14.03.2022, this Court granted two weeks
further time to the learned Standing Counsel
directing for filing a specific affidavit
indicating:-

A. As to why the scholarship for the
year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 had not
been paid?

B. As to whether any inquiry was
pending for the purpose of scholarship
reimbursement for the aforesaid years and if
not

C. what was the impediment in
reimbursement of the scholarship for the
aforesaid years?

4. The Deputy Director, Directorate
Social Welfare, U.P. filed a supplementary
affidavit stating that in the year 2013-14,
there were certain complaints regarding
financial irregularities that took place in the
year
2012-13.
Therefore,
the
amount
allocated for the year 2013-14 could not be
disbursed and it lapsed. The supplementary
affidavit specifically stated that the inquiry
against the petitioners' institution has been
conducted by a committee headed by the
Additional
District
Magistrate.
The
Committee
submitted
its
report
on
07.05.2015. Another inquiry pertaining to the
year 2016-17 had also been completed by the
District Statistical Officer, Gautam Budh
Nagar, Noida and no inquiry was pending
against the petitioners thereafter. The inquiry
report mentions that no allegation could be
established in inquiry. Therefore, there is no
allegation that any irregularity or illegality
has been committed by any of the petitioners.

5.
It
was
also
stated
in
the
supplementary affidavit that the Director,
Social Welfare had sent a letter dated
12 All. Centre for Management Technology, Gautam Buddha Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
595
26.05.2022 to the State Government for
reimbursement
of
the
amount
of
scholarship but the State Government
rejected the request by means of a letter
dated 14.06.2022. A copy of the letter
dated 14.06.2022 written by the State
Government to the Director Social Welfare
was annexed with this supplementary
affidavit.

6. Thereafter orders were passed in
Writ Petition Nos. 8484 and 8485 (M/S) of
2018 granting liberty to the petitioners to
challenge the order dated 14.06.2022. The
petitioners accordingly filed Writ C Nos.
4838 of 2024 and 4836 of 2024 challenging
validity of the order dated 14.06.2022
passed by the State Government. Both the
writ petitions were disposed off by separate
orders passed on 29.05.2024 on identical
terms, setting aside the order dated
14.06.2022 for the reason that the order
was not a reasoned order. The matter was
relegated to the State Government to take a
fresh decision after affording opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners.

7. It is after the aforesaid remand, that
the State Government has passed the
impugned
office
memorandum
dated
15.01.2025 which has been challenged by
filing Writ C Nos. 1647 of 2025 and 1668
of 2025.

8. The order states that the scheme
provides for transfer of the amount of
scholarship to the bank accounts of the
beneficiary students directly and there is no
provision for payment of scholarship
amount to the institutions. The matter is
quite old and there is every possibility that
bank accounts of several students would
not be in operation. In such circumstances,
if the department transfers the amount of
scholarship to the bank accounts of the
students, the transactions would fail. The
order further states that no student has
raised claim for payment of reimbursement
of fee or payment of scholarship. The
institutions are demanding payment of
money due to which there is every
possibility
of
mis-utilization
of
Government money.

9. The State has filed counter
affidavits in both the writ petitions
opposing the writ petitions mainly on two
grounds - the first is that the scheme does
not provide for payment of scholarship
money to the institution and it provides for
payment of amount by transferring the
same to the bank accounts of the students,
no student has come forward for claiming
the scholarship amount and the petitioner
institutions have no right to claim the
payment directly; the second objection
raised in the counter affidavit is that the
matter is quite old, the budgetary allocation
for payment of scholarship stands lapsed
and presently there is no budgetary
allocation for payment of the amount.

10. The Uttar Pradesh Anushuchit/
Anusuchit Janjati Dashmottar Chhatravritti
Yojna, 2012 provides that the students
eligible to get benefits under the scheme
will
be
admitted
to
the
concerned
educational institutions without paying any
fee. The petitioners took admission of the
students, imparted education to them for 4
years i.e. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and
2016-17. Students were paid scholarship
for the session 2015-16 only and no amount
was paid as scholarship to the students for
the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17.
The scheme provides that the students shall
transfer the amount to the educational
institutions within 15 days since its receipt
in their bank accounts. The students
received the scholarship amount for the
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
year 2015-16 and they in turn paid the
same to the petitioner institutions. They did
not get any amount as scholarship for the
rest of the years and, consequently, they did
not pay any amount towards fee to the
petitioner institutions.

11.
The
petitioners
had
taken
admission of the students under the scheme
without charging any fee, they imparted
education to the students who completed
their respective courses and left the
institutions.
Having
completed
their
education and having got their markssheets / certificates / degrees etc., the
students are no more aggrieved by nonpayment of scholarship. It is the petitioner
institutions, who had to receive money after
the same was paid as scholarship by
transferring the same to the students bank
account. Due to non payment of money by
transferring the same to the students'
account, the petitioner institutions could
not get the money payable towards their
fees although they have imparted education
to the students for three academic sessions.

12.
In
these
circumstances,
the
petitioners are aggrieved by non payment
of scholarship amount by the State due to
which reason the students did not pay fee to
the petitioners and, therefore, the mere fact
that students have not come forward to
challenge non-payment of scholarship
money, will not take away the petitioners'
right to claim payment of the amount of fee
when
the
petitioners
have
imparted
education to the students admitted under
the scheme, without charging any fee.

13. So far as the objection of the State
regarding budgetary allocation having
lapsed
is
concerned,
the
budgetary
allocation is made on yearly basis. The
State Government ought to have made
payment of the amount of scholarship as
per
the
timeline
prescribed
in
the
government order dated 26.09.2012 i.e. by
the 31st day of January of the particular
year, or in any case, before the end of the
respective financial years. The State
Government itself committed default in
payment of the amount within time or even
thereafter by the end of the financial years.
The reason assigned for non-payment of
the amount was pendency of some inquiry
which admittedly stood concluded wherein
the petitioners have not been found guilty
of committing any misconduct. In these
circumstances, denial of payment of
scholarship to the petitioners on the ground
of delay, which delay is not attributable to
the petitioners, will amount to punishing
the petitioners for a wrong which has not
been committed by them. It is basic
principle of dispensation of justice that no
person can be punished for a wrong which
he has not committed.

14. The learned Standing Counsel has
also opposed the writ petitions on the
ground that the claim of payment of fee
stands barred by the period of limitation as
the scholarship for the year 2013-14 was
payable on 31.01.2014 and the writ petition
has been filed in the year 2025.

15. In reply to the aforesaid objection,
the learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the District Social Welfare
Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar had sent
letters dated 24.07.2015 to the petitioners
stating that a demand for allocation of the
amount had been raised for the session
2013-14. As soon as the amount is received
from the State Government, the amount
will be transferred to the bank accounts of
the students. This amounts to a clear and
categorical admission regarding liability of
payment of amount and this would refresh
12 All. Centre for Management Technology, Gautam Buddha Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
597
the running of limitation. Writ Petition
Nos. 8584 of 2018 and 8585 of 2018 were
filed on 22.03.2018, which was within the
limitation period.

16. Further, the scheme provided that
the State Government would transfer the
scholorship amount to the bank accounts of
the students and the students will in turn
pay the amount of fee to the petitioners
within 15 days since receipt of the amount
in their bank accounts. Therefore, the
limitation period would start running after
the scholorship amount is transferred to the
bank accounts of the students, which has
not been done in the present case.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered
view that the claim of the petitioner has not
become barred by the limitation and it is
still continuing.

17.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
observation, I find no force in any of the
objections raised by the learned Standing
Counsel and since the only objection due to
which the payment of scholarship was
withheld, was that an inquiry was pending
in the matter and the inquiry stands
concluded in which no one has been found
guilty, there is no impediment in payment
of the amount of scholarship and fee
reimbursement.

18. As the students have completed
their studies without payment of any fee
to the petitioners in anticipation of
payment of scholarship, they have no
grievance left and they have not come
forward
to
claim the payment of
scholarship and it is the petitioners who
are suffering losses due to non payment
of scholarship to the students, who in
turn would have paid the amount to the
petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to
be paid the amount of scholarship and
fee of the students as per the details
already uploaded by them on the official
portal.

19. The petitioners have claimed
compound interest at the rate of 18% per
annum from the date the amount became
due till the date of actual payment of the
amount. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has placed reliance on a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Dr. Purnima Advani &
Anr. v. Govt. of NCT & Anr.: (2025) 7
SCC 269, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under: -

"14. The concept of awarding
interest on delayed payment has been
explained by this Court in Karnataka
Bank v. RMS Granites (P) Ltd.: 2024
SCC OnLine SC 4695, we quote the
following observations:

"16. It may be mentioned that
there is misconception about interest.
Interest is not a penalty or punishment
at all, but it is the normal accretion on
capital. For example if A had to pay B a
certain amount, say ten years ago, but
he offers that amount to him today, then
he has pocketed the interest on the
principal amount. Had A paid that
amount to B ten years ago, B would have
invested that amount somewhere and
earned interest thereon, but instead of
that A has kept that amount with himself
and earned interest on it for this period.
Hence equity demands that A should not
only pay back the principal amount but
also the interest thereon to B. [See: Alok
Shanker Pandey v. Union of India:
(2007) 3 SCC 545.]"

15. Thus, when a person is
deprived of the use of his money to which
he is legitimately entitled, he has a right to
be compensated for the deprivation which
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
may be called interest or compensation.
Interest is paid for the deprivation of the
use of money in general terms which has
returned or compensation for the use or
retention by a person of a sum of money
belonging to other.

16.
As
per
Black's
Law
Dictionary (7th Edn.): "interest" is the
compensation fixed by agreement or
allowed by law for use or detention of
money or for the loss of money of one who
is entitled to its use, especially, the amount
owned to a lender in return for the use of
the borrowed money.

17. As per Stroud's Judicial
Dictionary of Words and Phrases (5th
Edn.):
interest
means,
inter
alia,
compensation paid by the borrower to the
lender for deprivation of the use of his
money.

18. In Irrigation Deptt., State of
Orissa v. G.C. Roy: (1992) 1 SCC 508, a
Constitution Bench of this Court opined
that a person deprived of use of money to
which he is legitimately entitled has a right
to be compensated for the deprivation, call
it by any name. It may be called interest,
compensation or damages. This is also the
principle of Section 34 of the Civil
Procedure Code.

19. The essence of interest as
held by Lord Wright in Riches v.
Westminster Bank Ltd.: 1947 AC 390 (HL),
at AC p. 400, is that it is a payment, which
becomes due because the creditor has not
had his money at the due date. It may be
recorded either as representing the profit
he might have made if he had had the use
of the money, or, conversely, the loss he
suffered because he had not that use.

20. In CIT v. Sham Lal Narula:
1962 SCC OnLine Punj 35, a Division
Bench of the High Court of Punjab
articulated the concept of interest as under:
(SCC OnLine Punj)

"The
words
"interest"
and
"compensation"
are
sometimes
used
interchangeably and on other occasions
they have distinct connotation. "Interest" in
general
terms
is
the
return
or
compensation for the use or retention by
one person of a sum of money belonging to
or owed to another. In its narrow sense,
"interest" is understood to mean the
amount which one has contracted to pay
for use of borrowed money. ... In whatever
category "interest" in a particular case may
be put, it is a consideration paid either for
the use of money or for forbearance in
demanding it, after it has fallen due, and
thus, it is a charge for the use or
forbearance of money. In this sense, it is a
compensation allowed by law or fixed by
parties, or permitted by custom or usage,
for use of money belonging to another, or
for the delay in paying money after it has
become payable."

(emphasis supplied by Supreme Court)

21. The appeal filed against the
aforesaid decision was dismissed by this
Court in Sham Lal Narula v. CIT: 1964
SCC OnLine SC 151.

22. In Hello Minerals Water (P)
Ltd. v. Union of India: 2024 SCC OnLine
All 2187, a Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court explained the
concept of interest as under:

"31. We may mention that we are
passing the direction for interest since
interest is the normal accretion on capital.

32. Often there is misconception
about interest. Interest is not a penalty or
punishment at all. For instance, if A had to
pay a certain sum of money to B at a
particular time, but he pays it after a delay
of several years, the result will be that the
money remained with A and he would have
earned interest thereon by investing it
12 All. Centre for Management Technology, Gautam Buddha Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
599
somewhere. Had he paid that amount at the
time when it was payable then B would
have invested it somewhere, and earned
interest thereon. Hence, if a person has
illegally retained some amount of money
then he should ordinarily be directed to pay
not only the principal amount but also the
interest earned thereon.

33. Money doubles every six
years (because of compound interest).
Rupees hundred in the year 1990 would
become rupees two hundred in the year
1996 and it will become Rs 400 in the year
2002. Hence, if A had to pay B a sum of Rs
100 in the year 1990 and he pays that
amount only in the year 2002, the result
will be that A has pocketed Rs 300 with
himself. This clearly cannot be justified
because had he paid that amount to B in
the year 1990, B would be having Rs 400 in
the year 2002 instead of having only Rs
100. Hence, ordinarily interest should
always be awarded whenever any amount
is detained or realised by someone,
otherwise the person receiving the amount
after considerable delay would be losing
the entire interest thereon which will be
pocketed by the person who managed the
delay, it is for this reason that we have
ordered for payment of interest along with
the amount realised as export pass fee."

Interest is normal accretion on
capital

23. If on facts of a case, the
doctrine of restitution is attracted, interest
should
follow.
Restitution
in
its
etymological sense means restoring to a
party on the modification, variation or
reversal of a decree or order what has been
lost to him in execution of decree or order
of the court or in direct consequence of a
decree or order. The term "restitution" is
used in three senses, firstly, return or
restoration of some specific thing to its
rightful owner or status, secondly, the
compensation for benefits derived from
wrong done to another and, thirdly,
compensation or reparation for the loss
caused to another.

24. In Hari Chand v. State of
U.P.: 2011 SCC OnLine All 283, the
Allahabad High Court dealing with similar
controversy in a stamp matter held that the
payment of interest is a necessary corollary
to the retention of the money to be returned
under order of the appellate or revisional
authority. The High Court directed the
State to pay interest @ 8% for the period,
the money was so retained i.e. from the
date of deposit till the date of actual
repayment/refund.

25. In ONGC Ltd. v. Commr. of
Customs: (2007) 10 SCC 484, SCC para 6,
the facts were that the assessment orders
passed under the Customs Act creating
huge demands were ultimately set aside by
this Court. However, during pendency of
appeals, a sum of Rs 54,72,87,536 was
realised by way of customs duties and
interest thereon. In such circumstances, an
application was filed before this Court to
direct the respondent to pay interest on the
aforesaid amount w.e.f. the date of
recovery till the date of payment. The
appellants relied upon the judgment in
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of
M.P.: (2003) 8 SCC 648, this Court
explained the principles of restitution in
ONGC as under:

"6. The appellant is a public
sector undertaking. The respondent is the
Central Government. We agree that in
principle as also in equity the appellant is
entitled to interest on the amount deposited
on application of principle of restitution. In
the facts and circumstances of this case and
particularly having regard to the fact that
the amount paid by the appellant has
600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
already been refunded, we direct that the
amount deposited by the appellant shall
carry interest @ 6% per annum. Reference
in this connection may be made to Pure
Helium India (P) Ltd. v. ONGC: (2003) 8
SCC 593 and McDermott International Inc.
v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.: (2006) 11 SCC
181"

(emphasis supplied by Supreme Court)

Compensation

26. The word "compensation" has
been defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's
Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn. 2005, p.
918 as follows:

"An act which a court orders to
be done, or money which a court orders to
be paid, by a person whose acts or
omissions have caused loss or injury to
another in order that thereby the person
damnified may receive equal value for his
loss, or be made whole in respect of his
injury; the consideration or price of a
privilege purchased something given or
obtained as an equivalent, the rendering of
an equivalent in value or amount; an
equivalent given for property taken or for
an injury done to another; the giving back
an equivalent in either money which is but
the measure of value, or in actual value
otherwise conferred; a recompense in
value, a recompense given for a thing
received, recompense for the whole injury
suffered, remuneration or satisfaction for
injury or damage of every description,
remuneration for loss of time, necessary
expenditures, and for permanent disability
if such be the result; remuneration for the
injury directly, and proximately caused by
a breach of contract or duty; remuneration
or wages given to an employee or officer."

27. In Union of India v. Tata
Chemicals Ltd.: (2014) 6 SCC 335, this
Court held that when the collection is
illegal, the Revenue is obliged to refund
such amount with interest as money so
deposited was retained and enjoyed by it.
No discrimination can be shown between
the assessee and the Revenue in paying
interest on the refund of tax. Money
received and retained without right, carries
with it the right to interest. There being no
express statutory provision for payment of
interest on the refund of excess amount/tax
collected by the Revenue, the Government
cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to
reimburse the deductor's lawful monies
with accrued interest for the period of
undue retention of such monies. Obligation
to refund money received and retained
without right implies and carries with in
the
right
to
interest.
The
relevant
observations are as under:

"38. Providing for payment of
interest in case of refund of amounts paid
as tax or deemed tax or advance tax is a
method now statutorily adopted by fiscal
legislation to ensure that the aforesaid
amount of tax which has been duly paid in
prescribed time and provisions in that
behalf
form
part
of
the
recovery
machinery provided in a taxing statute.
Refund due and payable to the assessee is
debt-owed and payable by the Revenue.
The Government, there being no express
statutory provision for payment of interest
on the refund of excess amount/tax
collected by the Revenue, cannot shrug off
its apparent obligation to reimburse the
deductor's lawful monies with the accrued
interest for the period of undue retention
of such monies. The State having received
the money without right and having
retained and used it, is bound to make the
party good, just as an individual would be
under like circumstances. The obligation
to refund money received and retained
without right implies and carries with it
12 All. Centre for Management Technology, Gautam Buddha Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
601
the right to interest. Whenever money has
been received by a party which ex aequo et
bono ought to be refunded, the right to
interest follows, as a matter of course."

(emphasis supplied by Supreme Court)

22. Opposing the prayer for grant of
interest, the learned Standing Counsel has
submitted that the judgment in the case of
Dr.
Purnima
Advani
involved
the
question of payment of interest on delay in
refund of stamp duty. He has submitted that
the
present
case
case
regarding
reimbursement of fee and scholarship
amount under a scheme does not involve
any such statutory liability and, therefore,
the judgment in the case of Dr. Purnima
Advani will not apply to the facts of the
present case.

21. It is true that Dr. Purnima
Advani (supra) arose from the Stamp Act
but there is no provision in the Stamp Act
for payment of interest on refund of the
amount of stamp, and this was the precise
submission of the learned Counsel for the
Government in that case, which was
rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 13 of the judgment, which is as
follows: -

"13. The submission of the
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respondents that there is no provision in
the statute for the payment of interest on
refund of the amount of the e-stamp paper
that was lost by the appellants herein, is
without any merit. The subject General
Mandamus is a salutary advancement of
the law, calculated to insulate and protect
a citizen from unfair treatment by the
State."

22. Therefore, the ratio laid down in
Dr. Poornima Advani (Supra) cannot be
distinguished on the ground that the case
arose from the Stamp Act. Moreover, the
cases referred in Dr. Poornima Advani
(Supra), namely Karnataka Bank v. M/s
R.M.S. Granites Pvt. Ltd., Riches v.
Westminister Bank Ltd., Hello Minerals
Water (P) Ltd. v. Union Of India did not
arise from any such statute. In Hello
Minerals Water (P) Ltd., the Division
Bench of this Court has held that money
doubles every six years (because of
compound interest). Rs. hundred in the year
1990 would become Rs. two hundred in the
year 1996 and it will become Rs. 400 in the
year 2002. Hence, if A had to pay B a sum
of rupees 100 in the year 1990 and he pays
that amount only in the year 2002, the
result will be that A has pocketed Rs. 300
with himself. This clearly cannot be
justified because had he paid that amount to
B in the year 1990, B would be having Rs.
400 in the year 2002 instead of having only
Rs. 100/-. Hence, ordinarily interest should
always be awarded whenever any amount
is detained or realized by someone,
otherwise the person receiving the amount
after considerable delay would be losing
the entire interest thereon which will be
pocketed by the person who managed the
delay. The aforesaid principle laid down in
Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. squarely
covers the claim of interest on delayed
payment by the petitioners in the present
case.

23. However, the claim of payment of
compound interest at the rate of 18% per
annum does not appear to be justified and it
would be just to award payment of interest
at the maximum rates being paid by
Nationalized Banks on fixed deposits..
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions
are allowed. A Writ of Certiorari is issued
quashing
the
impugned
Office
Memorandum dated 15.01.2025 rejecting
the petitioners claim for reimbursement of
the amount of fee of the students. A Writ of
Mandamus is issued commanding the
opposite parties to pay to the petitioners the
amount of fee of the students to whom they
have imparted education under the Uttar
Pradesh Anushuchit / Anusuchit Janjati /
Samanya Varg / Alpsankhyak / Pichhdi Jati
Dashmottar Chhatravritti Yojna, 2012 for
the academic sessions 2013-14, 2014-15
and 2016-17, as per the details already
uploaded by them on the official portal,
alongwith interest for the period of delay
since the amounts had become payable till
those are actually paid, on the maximum
rates prevailing in nationalized bank for
payment of interest on fixed deposits.

25. The parties shall bear their own
costs of litigation.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 602
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 4177 of 2024

Rakesh Kumar Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
L.D.A. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to challenge to the order dated
30.04.2024 passed by the Chairman, Lucknow
Development Authority, relating to Plot No.
1/205, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, and prayer
for issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining
the respondents from allotting the said plot to
any other person, on the basis of alleged
housing pattas granted by the Gram Sabha in
the years 1973 and 1981, and dispute as to
whether the petitioner's house is situated on
Khasra No. 55 (acquired land) or Khasra No. 88
(non-acquired land).(Paras 1, 8, 19, 24)

Headnotes
Land Allotment - Gram Sabha Land -
Housing Patta - Validity - Allotment under
S. 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 can be made
only in favour of eligible categories in
accordance with the prescribed order of
preference and only after prior approval of
the
Assistant
Collector,
which
is
mandatory.(Paras 70, 75, 76)
Writ
Jurisdiction
-
Article
226
-
Suppression of Material Facts - Clean
Hands
-
A
litigant
invoking
the
extraordinary
and
discretionary
jurisdiction of the High Court must make
full and true disclosure of all material
facts; suppression or concealment of
earlier litigations relating to the same
subject-matter amounts to fraud on the
Court and disentitles such litigant to
relief.(Paras 11, 13, 29)
Statutory
Requirement
-
Mandatory
Approval - Requirement of prior approval
of the Assistant Collector for allotment of
Gram Sabha land, introduced by statutory
amendment, is mandatory and cannot be
dispensed with, and any allotment made
in violation thereof is invalid. (Paras 20,
24, 71)
Evidence - Survey - Electronic Total
Station (ETS) - Scientific survey conducted
using
Electronic
Total
Station
(ETS)
method constitutes reliable evidence for
determination of location and boundaries
of land. (Paras 24, 25)
Held: The petitioner's claim based on alleged
housing
pattas
of
1973
and 1981
was
unsustainable, as the allottee did not fall within
the eligible categories under S. 122-C, and the
pattas were issued without mandatory prior
approval of the Assistant Collector, rendering
them invalid - Joint survey conducted by the
revenue authorities and officials of the Lucknow
Development Authority using Electronic Total
Station (ETS) established that the petitioner's
house is situated on Khasra No. 55, which had