# Deepak Kumar v. Collector, Gautam Buddha Nagar and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 177
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-10-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38161 of 2001
- **Bench:** G.P. Mathur, R.P. Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-kumar-v-collector-gautam-buddha-nagar-and-others-39460
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226
readwith Land Acquisition Act Section
18-Compensation - Scope of Mandamus
- Seeking direction to the Assistant
Collector to give compensation - in view
of provision of Section 18, unless the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
178
reference is decided - compensation
cannot be given.

Held-Para 5

The facts mentioned above would show
that there is a serious dispute of title
between the petitioner and respondent
No. 3. The petitioner claims that his
name had been recorded prior to the
issuance of notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. SubClause (b) of Section 17(3-A) of the Act
provides that the Collector shall make
payment of amount of compensation
unless he is prevented by someone or
more of the contingencies mentioned in
Section 31(2), section 31(2) lays down
that if there be any dispute as to the title
to receive the compensation or as to the
apportionment of it, the Collector shall
deposit the amount of compensation in
the Court, to which a reference under
Section 18 would be submitted. In view
of this clear provision in the Act, the
compensation should not be paid to any
of the parties till the reference is decided
by the Court.

## Text

1All] Deepak Kumar V. Collector, Gautam Buddha Nagar and others
177
can see is whether the directive is
absolutely
whimsical,
arbitrary
or
malafide. No allegation of malafide has
been made in this petition against the
Election Commission.

9. In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of
India, reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 11 it has
been held by the Supreme Court that the
scope of interference in administrative
orders by the Court is very limited. In our
opinion the impugned order is not a
judicial or quasi judicial order but it is
purely administrative in nature. Hence the
scope of interference by the court in such
case is limited, and it can only see
whether the order is arbitrary or malafide.
We are of the opinion that it does not
suffer from any such defect. Merely
because this court could have taken a
different view that is not a good reason
for interfering with such administrative
order. This court is not testing the wisdom
of the Election Commission. The Election
Commission is a specialized body which
is politically neutral and has experience in
conducting elections and ordinarily it is
for the Commission to decide what would
be
conducive
for
a
fair
election.
Moreover, this Court does not ordinarily
interfere with policy matters, unless the
policy is clearly illegal.

10. Sri U.N. Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
decision of Supreme Court in M.S. gill
Vs. Chief Election Commission in AIR
1978 SC 851 and has submitted that the
respondent cannot supplement the reasons
given in the impugned order. In our
opinion this decision is distinguishable
because the impugned order does not give
reasons at all. Hence there is no question
of supplementing the reasons given in the
impugned order. There are various kinds
of administrative orders which often give
no reasons e.g. transfer or suspension
orders, and it cannot be said that these
orders are illegal merely because no
reason has been given in them or because
the respondents filed a counter affidavit
giving
reasons
for the transfer or
suspension, etc.

11. For the above reasons, we find
no merit in this petition. It is accordingly
dismissed.

12. Let a copy of this order be given,
if possible today, to the parties on
payment of usual charges.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: JANUARY 11,2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. MATHUR, J.
THE HON'BLE R.P. MISHRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38161 of 2001

Deepak Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
Collector,
Gautam
Budh
Nagar
and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinod Sinha
Sri S.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri Sidhartha
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226
readwith Land Acquisition Act Section
18-Compensation - Scope of Mandamus
- Seeking direction to the Assistant
Collector to give compensation - in view
of provision of Section 18, unless the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
178
reference is decided - compensation
cannot be given.

Held-Para 5

The facts mentioned above would show
that there is a serious dispute of title
between the petitioner and respondent
No. 3. The petitioner claims that his
name had been recorded prior to the
issuance of notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. SubClause (b) of Section 17(3-A) of the Act
provides that the Collector shall make
payment of amount of compensation
unless he is prevented by someone or
more of the contingencies mentioned in
Section 31(2), section 31(2) lays down
that if there be any dispute as to the title
to receive the compensation or as to the
apportionment of it, the Collector shall
deposit the amount of compensation in
the Court, to which a reference under
Section 18 would be submitted. In view
of this clear provision in the Act, the
compensation should not be paid to any
of the parties till the reference is decided
by the Court.

(Delivered by Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, J.)

1. This writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution has been filed
praying that a writ of mandamus be issued
to respondent no. 2 not to make payment
of any compensation to respondent no. 3
and to make payment of compensation of
the land in dispute to the petitioner as per
the compromise dated 12.10.1999 entered
into
between
the
petitioner
and
respondent no. 3. A further prayer has
been made that respondent no. 2 be
commanded to decide the representation
dated 27.10.2001 and 9.11.2001 filed by
the petitioner forthwith in accordance
with law.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and
Sri Siddhartha for respondent no. 3.

3. A suit under Section 229-B of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by Smt.
Anju, respondent No. 4 against Savitri
Devi respondent no. 3 for declaration that
she is bhumidhar of the land in dispute
which has been acquired subsequently
under Land Acquisition Act. The suit was
decreed ex-parte on 26.4.1996. Thereafter
the petitioner Deepak Kumar and Smt.
Anju (respondent no. 4) exchanged their
holdings in accordance with Section 161
of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act after permission
had been granted by the Assistant
Collector on 11.7.1997. The respondent
no. 3 moved an application for setting
aside the exparte decree dated 26.4.1996
and also preferred an appeal. A revision
was also filed before the Commissioner
against an order passed in proceedings for
setting aside the exparte decree. In
revision a compromise was entered into
between the petitioner and respondent no.
3 as the petitioner had on account of
exchange of holding got the holding of
respondent no. 4. Under the compromise,
the
petitioner
agreed
to
pay
Rs.
17,50,000/-
to
respondent
no.
3.
According to the petitioner he had paid
Rs. 2,50,000/- to respondent no. 3 by a
bank draft and the balance amount was
paid by several cheques. These cheques
were dishonoured. The appeal filed
against the judgment and decree dated
26.4.1996
was
allowed
by
the
Commissioner
by
the
order
dated
25.10.1999. By this order, the exparte
decree was set aside and the suit was
remanded for a fresh decision. This suit
has been dismissed by the trail court on
04.10.2001 on the ground that the land in
dispute has already been acquired by the
state Government. Against this decree, the
1All] Ram Roop and another V. The Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others
179
petitioner has again preferred an appeal
before the Commissioner, which is
pending.

4. The land has been acquired by
issuing notifications under sections 4(1)
and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act. Since the urgency
provisions under Section 17 have been
invoked the state has to pay eighty
percent of the estimated amount of
compensation to the person interested in
view Section 17(3-A) of the Land
Acquisition
Act.
A
supplementary
affidavit has been filed wherein it is
averred that the amount regarding which
the dispute has arisen is being paid under
Section 17(3-A) of the Land Acquisition
Act. The present writ petition has been
filed praying that a direction may be
issued to the Additional Collector (Land
Acquisition) to make payment of the
aforesaid amount of compensation to the
petitioner, in view of the compromise
which had been entered into between the
petitioner and respondent no. 3 on
12.10.1999.

5. The facts mentioned above would
show that there is a serious dispute of title
between the petitioner and respondent No.
3. The petitioner claims that his name had
been recorded prior to the issuance of
notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act. Sub-Clause (b) of
Section 17(3-A) of the Act provides that
the Collector shall make payment of
amount of compensation unless he is
prevented by someone or more of the
contingencies mentioned in Section 31(2),
section 31(2) lays down that if there be
any dispute as to the title to receive the
compensation or as to the apportionment
of it, the Collector shall deposit the
amount of compensation in the Court, to
which a reference under Section 18 would
be submitted. In view of this clear
provision in the Act, the compensation
should not be paid to any of the parties till
the reference is decided by the Court.

6. We, therefore, direct that the
compensation amount shall not be paid to
any party. The Collector may deposit the
amount in Court in accordance with subclause (2) of Section 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act.

The writ petition is allowed in the
manner indicated above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: JANUARY 3, 2002.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.H. ZAIDI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 481 of 1977

Ram Roop and another
...Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Varanasi and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Singh
Sri S.N. Singh
Sri A.K. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ram Niwas Singh
S.C.

U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings
Act
Section 48 - Power of Revisional Court -
application for Amendment - based on
absolutely
new
case-Allowed
by
Consolidation Officer by erypic order -
set a side by D.D.C. held-proper-new
case
based
on
such
facts
already
available can not
be permitted by
amendment.