# Dhan Pal Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 312
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-03
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 61005 of 2017
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhan-pal-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47682
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Vivek Saran

A. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Plots
and
Housing
Regulations
and
Allotment Rules, 1979 - Allotment of
shop/plot to the displaced person -
Rates chargeable on it, whether it
should be the rate which was given to
the
farmers
at
the
time
of
the
acquisition or the current market rate
- Held, the contention that the demand
of the Parishad for current rates is
unjustified cannot be sustained. The
petitioners
are
liable
to
pay
the
current rates as applicable towards the
allotment of the plots in their favour -
Raghuvir Singh's case is followed.
(Para 3 and 9)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)01ILR A312
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2021 &
23.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 61005 of 2017

Dhan Pal Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vivek Saran

A. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Plots
and
Housing
Regulations
and
Allotment Rules, 1979 - Allotment of
shop/plot to the displaced person -
Rates chargeable on it, whether it
should be the rate which was given to
the
farmers
at
the
time
of
the
acquisition or the current market rate
- Held, the contention that the demand
of the Parishad for current rates is
unjustified cannot be sustained. The
petitioners
are
liable
to
pay
the
current rates as applicable towards the
allotment of the plots in their favour -
Raghuvir Singh's case is followed.
(Para 3 and 9)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 487 of 2018;
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & ors. Vs
Raghuvir Singh (D) through L.R.s & ors. decided
on 11.01.2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Vivek Saran, learned counsel, who has put
in appearance on behalf of contesting
Respondents No.2, 3 & 4 and learned
Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1.

2. The pleadings between the
contesting parties have been exchanged and
with the consent of the parties, we proceed
to decide the writ petition on merits at the
admission stage itself.

3. The writ petitioners claim that they
are
"Displaced
Persons"
within
the
meaning of displaced persons under the
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Plots and
Housing Regulations and Allotment Rules,
1979. Their entire land was acquired by the
Parishad for their Vasundhara Scheme. The
award in respect of the acquisition was
made on 27.02.1989. It is submitted that
the Parishad under the 1979 Regulations
has decided to allot plots as well as shops
to the displaced persons provided such
displaced persons apply and get themselves
registered by depositing a sum of Rs.5000/-
in between 01.09.1999 and 30.09.1999.
There is no dispute about the petitioners
getting themselves registered by depositing
the
requisite
amounts.
The
Parishad
proceeded to allot the shops to the
petitioners which were not acceptable to
the petitioners. The Parishad consequent to
a meeting held on 08.10.2012 resolved to
allot commercial plot measuring 25 sq.
meter to 50 sq. meter to the displaced
persons. The grievance of the petitioners,
as is borne out from the averments made in
the writ petition, is with regard to the rate
of the land/plot being charged by the
Parishad. According to the petitioners, the
rate should be the rate which was given to
the farmers at the time of the acquisition,
while the Parishad is insisting on current
1 All. Dhan Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
market rate. The other grievance of the
petitioners is that till date the plots have not
been allotted to the petitioners.

4. Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents,
has filed counter affidavit stating therein
that the Parishad on account of the
unwillingness
of
the
erstwhile
landowners/villagers, whose entire land
was acquired and such persons were placed
in the category of "Displaced Persons", in
principal
agreed
to
allot
"Small
Commercial
Plots"
at
the
current/
prevailing market rate at the time of the
allotment through the process of auction.
He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has approved the charging of the current
land rate by the Parishad in its order dated
11.01.2018 passed in Special Leave to
Appeal (C) No.487 of 2018 (U.P. Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad & others Vs.
Raghuvir Singh (D) through L.R.s &
others), which SLP arose from the
judgment rendered by this Court in Writ
Petition (C) No.64373 of 2008. The order
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been
brought on record as CA-2.

5. Sri Vivek Saran further submits
that in similar set of facts this Court was
pleased to dispose of Writ Petition (C)
No.16355
of
2018
by
order
dated
10.05.2018 (Annexure CA-3) directing the
Parishad to allot "Small Commercial Plots"
through auction amongst the Displaced
Person Category. He further submits that
the prevailing land rate in Vasundhara
Scheme, Ghaziabad is between Rs.48,800/-
to Rs.44,200/- sq. meter and the circle rate
would be around Rs.60,000/- to Rs.56,500/-
per sq. meter and in such view of the
matter, the rate of land demanded by the
petitioners is unimaginable and cannot
be accepted.

6. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by
the petitioners, in response to the counter
affidavit of the Parishad, the petitioners
have demonstrated that the Parishad is not
following uniform policy in applying the
rate of the land rather is adopting a pick
and choose policy, inasmuch as for certain
schemes i.e. Siddharth Vihar Mandola of
Ghaziabad,
Vrindadban
Scheme
of
Lucknow, the Parishad has allotted plots to
displaced persons on the basis of rate of
compensation or 20% of first allotment,
while the displaced persons of Vasundhara
Scheme, Ghaziabad (i.e. the petitioners) the
Parishad is demanding the current market
rate.

7. Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel
for the contesting respondents has apprised
the Court that the Parishad generally allots
the commercial plots by conducting public
auctions. However, since the present
allotment process relates to allotting the
commercial plots of 25 to 50 sq. meter to a
special class i.e. displaced persons, a
proposal dated 06.10.2021 has been made
not to hold any auction and allot the plots
to the displaced persons, such as the
petitioners. The proposal dated 06.10.2021
is in the process of approval in the Board
Meeting of the Parishad and soon after the
approval, the allotment of the plots shall be
made to the petitioners and other similarly
circumstanced displaced persons.

8.

We
have
considered
the
submissions raised. We find that Writ
Petition (C) No.64373 of 2008 (Raghvir
Singh and another Vs. State of U.P through
Secretary, Urban Development and others)
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
raising similar issues, as raised in the
present petition was, allowed and the
demand of current rates made by the
respondents was held to be unsustainable.
However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.487 of
2018 (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad &
others Vs. Raghuvir Singh (D) through
L.R.s & others) preferred by the Parishad
against the decision dated 06.10.2017
passed in Writ Petition (C) No.64373 of
2008, vide its order dated 11.01.2018,
modified the order of the High Court to the
effect that the rate at which the plot may be
allotted, will be the current rate.

9. In such view of the matter, the
contention of the petitioners that the
demand of the Parishad for current rates is
unjustified
cannot be
sustained.
The
petitioners are liable to pay the current rates
as applicable towards the allotment of the
plots in their favour. As regards the
allotment of the "Small Commercial Plots"
of 25-50 sq. meter area to the petitioners, it
is expected from the Respondent Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad that the allotment
process may be finalized at the earliest
considering the delay that has already
occurred.

10. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is dismissed.

Order on Correction Application.

The application is allowed.

The word 'Pritinder' in the signature
clause of the judgement dated 3.12.2021
stands substituted by the word 'Pritinker'.

This order shall be treated as part of
the
judgement
dated
3.12.2021
and
certified copy of this order shall be issued
along with copy of judgement dated
3.12.2021.
----------
(2022)01ILR A314
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.12.2021
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.2955 of 2007

Rakesh Kumar Shukla ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.,Sri U.B. Singh, Sri V.B. Rao

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 307, 504 , 506 - Section 155(4)
Cr.P.C - Where a case relates to two or
more offences of which at least one is
cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be
a cognizable case, notwithstanding that
the
other
offences
are
noncognizable.(Para - 16)

Informant/respondent no.2 filed an application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the
accused-applicant - applicant had fired at him
with the intention to kill him - charge sheet
forwarded to the court for trial of the applicant.
- applicant charged with offences under
Sections 504 and 506 IPC - one of which, i.e.
the offence under Section 506 is a cognizable
offence.(Para - 2,3,15)

HELD:-Since the accused had been charged
under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, he has to be
tried for both the offences in the manner
prescribed for trial of cognizable offences.(Para
- 17)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. rejected. (E-7)