# Daya Ram Objection Filed v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 932
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-11
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1001660 of 2003
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/daya-ram-objection-filed-v-state-of-u-p-52775
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Dilip
Pandey,
Kapil
Kumar
Srivastava, R.N. Gupta

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the allotment of Gaon Sabha land
made in favour of the petitioner was vitiated
for
non-compliance
of
the
mandatory
requirement of issuing notice of at least
seven clear days under Rule 173 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules,
1952

HEADNOTE
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - ss.198(4), 229-B,
331, 333-A - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - r.173 -
Constitution
of
India
-
Art.226
-
Allotment of Gaon Sabha land in favour of
landless
persons
-
Cancellation
of
allotment
-
Revision
under
s.333-A
dismissed
-
Validity
of
allotment
proceedings - Notice for meeting of Land
Management
Committee
-
Statutory
requirement of seven clear days' notice -
Notice dated 26.06.1989 mentioning date
of meeting as 23.06.1989 - Date of
meeting prior to issuance of notice - Even
otherwise, notice period not in conformity
with r.173 - Mandatory requirement not
complied with - Proceedings vitiated
HELD:
Notice inviting applications for allotment
was not issued seven days prior to the
date of meeting as required under Rule
173 - Meeting of the Land Management
Committee held in violation of statutory
rules - Allotment proceedings illegal -
Orders passed by the Additional Collector
and
affirmed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner do not suffer from any
illegality - No ground made out for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution
of
India
-
Writ
petition
dismissed. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
NIL
List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950;
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952;
Constitution of India.

List of Keyword
Gaon Sabha land; Allotment; Cancellation of
allotment; Landless person; Notice of meeting;
Seven
days'
notice;
Rule
173;
Land
Management Committee; Revision under Section
333-A; Ex parte decree; Interference under
Article 226.

CASE ARISING FROM
From the judgment and order dated
16.04.2003 passed by the Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Lucknow
Division, Lucknow in Revision No. 405 of
1996-97.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Vimal Kishore Verma.
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., Dilip Pandey,
Kapil Kumar Srivastava, R.N. Gupta.

## Text

932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(a) Concubine can not maintain
relationship in the nature of marriage.

(b)
Polygamy,
that
is
a
relationship or practice of having more
than one wife or husband at the same time,
or a relationship by way of a bigamous
marriage that is marrying someone while
already
married
to
another
and/or
maintaining an adulterous relationship that
is having voluntary sexual intercourse
between a married person who is not one's
husband or wife, cannot be said to be a
relationship in the nature of marriage.
Polygamy is also a criminal offence under
Sections 494 & 495 I.P.C.

(c) Till a decree of divorce is
passed the marriage subsist. Any other
marriage during the subsistence of the first
marriage would constitute an offence under
Section 494 I.P.C. read with Section 17 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the
person, inspite of his conversion to some
other religion would be liable to be
prosecuted for the offence of bigamy. (d) If
both the persons are otherwise not
qualified to enter into a legal marriage
including being unmarried."

18. It is settled law that writ of
mandamus can be issued if the petitioner has a
legal right to the performance of a legal duty
by the party against whom the mandamus is
sought and such right must be subsisting on
the date of the petition. Similar view has also
been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kalyan Singh vs, State of U.P., AIR 1962
SC 1183 and Director of Settlement A.P.
(supra). Applying the principles of issuance of
writ of mandamus on the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the petitioners have
no legal right for protection on the facts of the
present case inasmuch as such the protection
as being asked, may amount to protection
against commission of offence under Section
494/495 I.P.C. It is well settled law that writ of
mandamus can not be issued contrary to law
or to defeat a statutory provision including
penal provision. The petitioners do not have
legally protected and judicially enforceable
subsisting right to ask for mandamus.

19. Considering rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and the Judicial
Authorities of this Court cited as above, this
Court is not inclined to issue any writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus for
protection to the petitioners who are in live-in
relationship without obtaining decree of
divorce from
the
competent
court
as
mentioned above. The petitioner no. 1 is
legally wedded wife of respondent no. 4 and
their marriage has not been dissolved by
orders of any competent court, therefore, it
would be deemed to be subsisting in the eye of
law. In such a situation, protection to the
petitioners who claim to be in live-in
relationship, cannot be granted in exercise of
powers conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as well as in the light of
judgment of Asha Devi (supra).

20.
Accordingly,
petition
stands
dismissed with above observations.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 932
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 1001660 of 2003

Daya Ram Objection Filed ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Petitioner:
11 All. Daya Ram Objection Filed Vs. State of U.P.
933
Vimal Kishore Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Dilip
Pandey,
Kapil
Kumar
Srivastava, R.N. Gupta

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the allotment of Gaon Sabha land
made in favour of the petitioner was vitiated
for
non-compliance
of
the
mandatory
requirement of issuing notice of at least
seven clear days under Rule 173 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules,
1952

HEADNOTE
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - ss.198(4), 229-B,
331, 333-A - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - r.173 -
Constitution
of
India
-
Art.226
-
Allotment of Gaon Sabha land in favour of
landless
persons
-
Cancellation
of
allotment
-
Revision
under
s.333-A
dismissed
-
Validity
of
allotment
proceedings - Notice for meeting of Land
Management
Committee
-
Statutory
requirement of seven clear days' notice -
Notice dated 26.06.1989 mentioning date
of meeting as 23.06.1989 - Date of
meeting prior to issuance of notice - Even
otherwise, notice period not in conformity
with r.173 - Mandatory requirement not
complied with - Proceedings vitiated
HELD:
Notice inviting applications for allotment
was not issued seven days prior to the
date of meeting as required under Rule
173 - Meeting of the Land Management
Committee held in violation of statutory
rules - Allotment proceedings illegal -
Orders passed by the Additional Collector
and
affirmed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner do not suffer from any
illegality - No ground made out for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution
of
India
-
Writ
petition
dismissed. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
NIL
List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950;
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952;
Constitution of India.

List of Keyword
Gaon Sabha land; Allotment; Cancellation of
allotment; Landless person; Notice of meeting;
Seven
days'
notice;
Rule
173;
Land
Management Committee; Revision under Section
333-A; Ex parte decree; Interference under
Article 226.

CASE ARISING FROM
From the judgment and order dated
16.04.2003 passed by the Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Lucknow
Division, Lucknow in Revision No. 405 of
1996-97.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Vimal Kishore Verma.
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., Dilip Pandey,
Kapil Kumar Srivastava, R.N. Gupta.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vimal Kishore Verma,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P.
Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondent and Sri Dilip Pandey,
learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs :-

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing he impugned judgment and order
dated 16.4.2003, passed by opposite party
No.2, Additional Commissioner (Judicial)
Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Revision
No.405 of 1996-97 under Section 333-A of
the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, contained at
Annexure No.10 to the writ petition, and
impugned order dated 24.1.1997 passed by
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opposite party No.3, Appar Collector,
Sitapur in Case No.31/36/48/104 Under
Section - 198(4) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.
Act, contained at Annexure No.8 to the writ
petition.

(ii) issue any other writ, order or
direction in the nature and manner which
this Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit,
proper and just in the circumstances of the
case and;

(iii) ..."

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the
petitioner is a landless person belonging to
backward caste and residing in Village
Medhia, Mohammadpur Kadeem, where
the disputed land situates. The allotment of
disputed land Gata No.183/ 0.266 hectare
has been made in the aforesaid village after
passing the resolution by respondent No.5
and approval was also made by Sub
Divisional
Officer,
Mahmoodabad
on
24.7.1989 in favour of petitioner and 24
other persons.

4. The allotment of agricultural land
Gata No.183 has been made in favour of
petitioner alongwith 24 other persons on
the same day by same and single resolution
of
respondent
No.5.
Thereafter,
the
petitioner is in possession over the land and
doing cultivation on the basis of allotment
done in his favour. The respondent No.4
filed a case under Section 198(4) of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act, 1950 for cancellation of
allotment made in favour of the petitioner,
in July 1989. The petitioner filed his
objection
regarding
the
aforesaid
application of respondent No.4.

5. The father of respondent No.4
namely Baldeo having 1.218 hectare
agricultural land situated in the same
village and respondent No.4 is the only son
of Baldeo and residing with his father.
Father of the respondent No.4 is having
other agricultural land Gata No.182/ 0.044
hectare, therefore, the claim setup by the
petitioner is that the respondent No.4 is not
the landless person.

6. The respondent No.3 cancelled the
allotment made in favour of the petitioner
vide order dated 24.1.1997. During the
pendency of the case under Section 198(4)
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, the respondent No.4 filed
Case No.51/94/122/138/151 under Section
229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act before the Deputy
Collector, Mahmoodabad, in which the
petitioner filed his written statement in the
said suit on 31.5.1995, whereby the Deputy
Collector passed the order ex-parte in exparte proceeding on 23.4.1999 and the suit
was decreed. Against the order of the
Deputy Collector dated 23.4.1999, the
petitioner moved a restoration application
for setting aside the aforesaid order which
was rejected on 28.5.1999 and the next date
was fixed as 31.5.1999 for final argument/
orders and closed the opportunity of
hearing and evidence to the petitioner.

7. The Deputy Collector passed exparte judgment and decree dated 2.6.1999
in the suit filed under Section 229-B of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act in favour of respondent No.4.
The petitioner filed Appeal No.397/199899 under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act before the
respondent No.2 which was admitted and
operation of the judgment was stayed.
Against the cancellation of allotment of
land of the petitioner, he filed Revision
No.405/1996-97 before the respondent
11 All. Daya Ram Objection Filed Vs. State of U.P.
935
No.2 against the judgment and order dated
24.1.1997, passed by the respondent No.3.

8. The Additional Commissioner,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow (respondent
No.2) dismissed the revision on the ground
that the suit under Section 229-B of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Act decreed on 2.6.1999 in favour
of the respondent No.4.

9. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that suit was decreed under
Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act by exparte decree passed in favour of respondent
No.4, which was not considered by the
Additional Commissioner in his order dated
16.4.2003. Next submission is that the
order dated 16.4.2003 is ex-parte and
without giving opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondents submit that the
impugned order do not suffer from any
infirmity or illegality and is just and valid
order.

11.
After
having
heard
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, I perused the material on
record.

12. In the present case, records were
summoned to peruse the notice issued
inviting applications for allotment of land.
In pursuance to the order of this Court,
record has been produced today in Court.
On perusal of notice issued, it is evident
that date of notice for holding the meeting
has been given as 30.6.1989. 'Zero' was cut
down in the aforesaid date and before the
number '3', '2' has been incorporated. On
perusal of the notice on record, it is evident
that notice was issued on 26.6.1989 and the
date mentioned for holding meeting was
23.6.1989, which is not possible as it is
prior to the date of issuance of notice. In
case cutting on the date is taken into
consideration that it is 30.6.1989 even then
the period of notice as provided under
Section 173 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952
provides that from the date of issuance of
notice, seven days must be cleared.

13. For ready reference Section 173of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Rules, 1952 is quoted as under :-

"[173. Sections 195, 197 and
198. Admission to land. - Whenever the
Land Management Committee intends to
admit any person to land under Section 195
or 197, it shall announce by beat of drum
in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which
the land is situate at least seven days
before the date of meeting for admission of
land, the numbers of plot, their areas and
the date on which admission thereto is to
be made.]"

14. On perusal of the record, it is
evident that notice was not issued seven
days prior to the date of meeting even if it
is assumed that the date is 30.6.1989. On
the date mentioned in the notice after
cutting of zero, '2' was added, even then
prior to the date of issuance of notice, the
date cannot be assumed to be 23.6.1989.
On the reasons referred hereinabove, the
impugned order do not require any
interference in exercise of power under
Article 226 of Constitution of India.

15. In view of totality of facts and
circumstances of the case and the reasons
recorded above, the writ petition is
dismissed.
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. The record produced today is
returned to the learned Standing Counsel.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 936
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 1001686 of 2004

M/S Century Laminating Comp. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Assessing Authority U.P. Pollution Control
Board & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Smita Chitranshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sudeep Kumar, Ashok Kumar Verma,
Sudhir Pande

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
a
decorative
laminates
manufacturing unit producing decorative
laminated sheets (Sunmica), using Kraft
paper, waste paper, phenol, card phenol,
melamine and formalin as raw materials,
could be treated as a "Chemical Industry"
or "Paper Industry" falling under Schedule-I
of the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, so as to attract
levy of cess; and whether the assessment
orders
imposing
cess
were
without
jurisdiction.

HEADNOTE
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess
Act, 1977 - ss. 3(2), 3(2A), 7 - Schedule-I -
Levy
of
cess
-
Decorative
laminates
manufacturing industry - Use of Kraft paper,
waste paper, phenol, card phenol, melamine and
formalin as raw materials - Whether "Chemical
Industry" or "Paper Industry" - Assessment
orders passed treating the entire unit as
chemical industry - Challenge.
HELD:
Cess Act is a fiscal statute and must be
construed strictly - Industry must fall squarely
within the specified industries enumerated in
Schedule-I - Nature of industry cannot be
determined merely on the basis of raw materials
used - Predominant purpose, manufacturing
process and ultimate product are determinative
-
Decorative
laminated
sheets
(Sunmica)
constitute a finished, composite product -
Decorative laminates manufacturing industry
does not find mention in Schedule-I - End
product cannot be classified as "Paper" or
"Chemical" - Chemical process may be involved
to some extent in all industries, but an industry
would be known as a chemical industry only if it
carries out predominantly chemical activities and
is involved in chemical endeavours - Decorative
laminates
manufacturing
unit
cannot
be
regarded as a chemical industry for the purpose
of levy of cess - Assessment orders imposing
cess are without authority or jurisdiction - Liable
to be quashed - Amount of cess deposited
directed to be refunded - Cess in respect of
water consumed in the Formaline Plant to be
levied in accordance with law under ss. 3(2A)
and 3(2). [Paras 16-24, 29-32] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
A.P. Board for Water Pollution Control v. A.P.
Rayons Ltd., (1989) 1 SCC 44 - relied on.
Saraswati Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Haryana State
Board, (1992) 1 SCC 418 - relied on.

List of Acts
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess
Act, 1977;
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974;
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

List of Keyword
Decorative
laminates;
Sunmica;
Chemical
industry;
Paper
industry;
Schedule-I;
Predominant purpose; Ultimate product; Fiscal
statute; Levy of cess; Lack of jurisdiction;
Refund of cess; Formaline Plant.

CASE ARISING FROM
Orders dated 22.04.2002 and assessment
orders
dated
17.08.2002,
25.07.2002,
29.08.2002, 17.11.2003 and 09.03.2004.