# Dr. Kailash Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1626
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-19
- **Case number:** THE HON'BLE ASHOK PAL SINGH Misc. Bench No. 10533 of 2013
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-kailash-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42841
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Interference
by anti social elements-petitioner being
allottee from L.D.A.-restrained by antisocial elements-from raising constructionallotment
not
disputed-suggestion
of
intervener regarding plots to be covered by
water reservoir-denial by Development
Authority-held-development authority and
housing board-bound to provide protection
by
appointing
Nodel
officers-further
consequential guidelines given.

Held: Para-14
Considering the problems with regard to
interference by the anti social elements or
alike persons with the property of lawful
allotttess to secure the public interest, it is
necessary to issue directions so that it may
not be necessary for a citizen to approach
this court again and again for an incident
that
he/she
is
stopped
with
the
construction work by a person or group of
persons over his/her land.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 2001 SC 3215; 2013 LCD 2048.

## Text

1626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respect of the existing right, is not acceptable
and the application of the workman was
maintainable and it was in respect of an
existing right.

22. Relevant it would be to mention
that before the Labour Court the respondent
no. 1 had moved an application dated 25th
September, 1997 to summon certain orders
of the petitioner. But in spite of the order
having been passed when the documents
were not produced, the respondent no. 1 had
filed photocopies of the said orders before
the Labour Court. The Labour Court after
perusal of the order of the petitioner dated
10th January, 1977 found that the pay scale
of the Stenographer Selection Grade was
Rs.300-655 with effect from 01st April,
1969, which was revised to Rs.540-900 with
effect from 01st April, 1974. Again it was
revised to Rs.656-1121 and thereafter
Rs.665-1130 with effect from 01st April,
1979. Thereafter, vide Board's order dated
28th August, 1995 it was revised to Rs.18502930. The Labour Court has recorded that
the employer/petitioner did not file any
documentary evidence to establish its claim
that the pay scale of the Stenographer
Selection Grade was Rs.485-755. It has also
recorded the statement of the only witness
produced by the employer, namely, Sri
Ramesh Babu Sharma, who deposed that he
did not know any fact with regard to
previous award of the Labour Court and the
order of the Supreme Court. He also could
not satisfy the Labour Court that why the
papers summoned by the Court on the
application of the respondent no. 1-workman
were not produced. There is a recital in the
impugned order that said witness of the
employer admitted in his deposition that the
pay scale of Rs.665-1130 was revised to
Rs.1850-2930. The Labour Court has, thus,
on the basis of documents and oral evidence,
recorded a finding of fact about the revision
of pay scale of the Stenographer Selection
Grade to Rs.1850-2930.

23. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
failed to point out any infirmity in the
findings recorded by the Labour Court.

24. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view
that there is no error in the impugned order
and award of the Labour Court to warrant any
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, the award
of the Labour Court is upheld. The petitioner
is directed to make the payment in terms of
the award passed by the Labour Court within
three months from the date of communication
of this order. The respondent no. 1 shall be
entitled for interest @ 9% from the date of
award till the payment is actually made to
him. Needless to say that the amount received
by the respondent no. 1 in compliance with
the interim order of this Court dated 16th
March, 1998 shall be adjusted.

25. Thus, the writ petition fails and
is hereby dismissed.

26. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK PAL SINGH

Misc. Bench No. 10533 of 2013
and Misc. Bench No. 10529 of 2013.

Dr. Kailash Singh & Ors.... Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri
Anurag
Kumar
Singh
3 All] Dr. Kailash Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1627
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Sanjay
Bhasin

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Interference
by anti social elements-petitioner being
allottee from L.D.A.-restrained by antisocial elements-from raising constructionallotment
not
disputed-suggestion
of
intervener regarding plots to be covered by
water reservoir-denial by Development
Authority-held-development authority and
housing board-bound to provide protection
by
appointing
Nodel
officers-further
consequential guidelines given.

Held: Para-14
Considering the problems with regard to
interference by the anti social elements or
alike persons with the property of lawful
allotttess to secure the public interest, it is
necessary to issue directions so that it may
not be necessary for a citizen to approach
this court again and again for an incident
that
he/she
is
stopped
with
the
construction work by a person or group of
persons over his/her land.

Case Law discussed:
AIR 2001 SC 3215; 2013 LCD 2048.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

1. Affidavits have been exchanged
between the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

3. These two writ petitions have
been preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution with the common reliefs,
hence, with the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, they are being decided by
this common Judgment and order at
admission stage.

4. Admittedly, the petitioners have
been allotted plots/land by the Lucknow
Development Authority and U.P. Housing
Board, Lucknow. After allotment of the
plots/land, the petitioners have applied for
sanction
of
maps.
The
Lucknow
Development Authority and the U.P.
Housing Board Board, Lucknow have
sanctioned the maps of the petitioners in
accordance to rules and thereafter, the
petitioners visited their sites for starting
construction work. They were stopped to
raise constructions by certain persons
including the Members of Kissan Union
and some villagers of the vicinity. Feeling
aggrieved,
the
petitioners
have
approached this court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India by filing the
instant writ petitions.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
Development
Authorities(Lucknow
Development Authority as well as U.P.
Housing Board, Lucknow) do not dispute
that the petitioners are the lawful allottees
of the plots and their maps have been
sanctioned for construction of permanent
structure over the land allotted to them.

6. In pursuance of the order passed
by this court, Sri J. Ravindir Goud, Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, has
filed an affidavit and has brought on
record that seven persons have submitted
the complaints with the grievance that
they
have
been
stopped
to
raise
constructions by the Members of Bhartiya
Kissan Union. These seven persons are
namely, Sri Susheel Kumar, Sri Janki
Prasad, Sri Mahesh Pal, Sri Ajay Kumar
Saxena, Sri Jamal Ahmad, Sri Himanshu
Gupta and again Sri Himanshu Gupta.

7. The Senior Superintendent of
Police, Lucknow has pointed out that
Members of the Bhartiya Kissan Union
have stopped the lawful allottees to raise
constructions over their plots. In some of
1628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the cases, matter has been settled, but, in
other cases, the dispute is still under
discussion.

8. Sri Anurag Yadav, District
Magistrate, Lucknow has also filed an
affidavit pointing out similar problems
where the allottees have been prevented to
raise constructions over their land which
have been allotted to them by the
Development Authorities or the Housing
Board.

9. On the other hand, Mohd. Abid
Ali, learned counsel appearing as an
intervenor in Writ Petition No. 10533
(M/B) of 2013 submits that the plots
allotted to the petitioners are water body,
reservoirs or pond and they should be
maintained in the same capacity as they
exist, by the development authorities in
view of law laid down by the Apex Court
in the case reported in AIR 2001 SC
3215, Hinch Lal Tewari Vs Kamla Devi
and Others.

10. So far as the argument advanced
by Sri Abid Ali, learned counsel for the
intervenor
that
the
development
authorities cannot allot the plots while
preparing the lay out plans of the area
which is a water body reservoir or a pond
in terms of revenue record in view of law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case
of Hinch Lal Tewari(Supra) is concerned,
seems to be correct. It is the duty of the
developments authorities to maintain
them in the same form as a part of public
recreation centres or picnic spot.

11.

Lucknow
Development
Authority, Lucknow while filing the
Counter Affidavit has denied that the
plots allotted to the petitioners of the writ
petition no. 10533(M/B) of 2013 are
water reservoir or ponds which has been
refuted by Sri Abid Ali, learned counsel
for the intervenor by filing an affidavit.
Whether
the
plots
allotted
to
the
petitioners are water reservoirs or ponds,
is a disputed question of fact which
requires thorough probe.

12. Now, coming to first limb of
argument of learned counsel for the the
petitioners that lawful allottees have been
prevented by Members of a certain
union/association or person to raise
constructions over the land allotted to
them is concerned, is a matter of deep
concern for this court. In case, the lawful
allottees are prevented by some persons
by use of muscle power or mobism, then,
it shall be antithesis of the rules of law.

13. The report sent by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow also
reveals that at different places, Members of
Bhartiya Kissan Union have tried to prevent
the construction of lawful allottees. Identical
writ petitions have also been filed in this
court from time to time, where the lawful
allottees have been prevented to raise
constructions on the basis of sanctioned plan
by a group of persons or by some anti-social
elements or by politically associated persons.
Right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a
fundamental right conferred to a citizen
subject to statutory and constitutional
limitation as held by the Division Bench of
this court in the case reported in 2013 LCD
2048, Shree Narayan Singh Versus State of
U.P. & Others. Accordingly, once a plot or
land is allotted by Development Authority to
a citizen and he/she wants to raise
constructions over it in pursuance of the
sanctioned plan and statutory limitation, then
no person has right to interfere with such
construction. It appears that in the district of
Lucknow, it is a routine feature where the
3 All] Dr. Kailash Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1629
constructions are stopped by a group of
private
persons
or
associations/union
interfering with the rights to enjoyment of
the property of lawful allottees. The
government must deal strictly with such anti
social elements. The Senior Superintendent
of Police, Lucknow must ensure that the
lawful allottees are permitted to raise
constructions in pursuance of the sanctioned
plan and appropriate task force must be
constituted by the district administration to
deal with such situation for ensuring that the
citizens may enjoy their properties which
have been allotted to them in accordance to
law.

14. Considering the problems with
regard to interference by the anti social
elements or alike persons with the property
of lawful allotttess to secure the public
interest, it is necessary to issue directions so
that it may not be necessary for a citizen to
approach this court again and again for an
incident that he/she is stopped with the
construction work by a person or group of
persons over his/her land.

15. We have been informed by learned
Standing Counsel that nodal officers have
been appointed to look into such matters, but,
we feel that the nodal officers have failed to
discharge their obligations except indulging
into negotiations with the persons who
interfere with the constructions of the houses
of the lawful allotttees and keep the matter
pending
for
an
indefinite
period.
Accordingly, we dispose of both the writ
petitions finally with the following directions
:-

1. The District Magistrate/Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow shall
constitute a
Task
Force
containing
sufficient number of persons of Arm
Forces like P.A.C. headed by the Sub.
Divisional Magistrate and a Deputy
Superintendent of Police to deal with such
complaints where any person/ association
or union interferes with the construction
work raised by lawful allottee in the city
or district of Lucknow. More than one
Task Force may be established to meet
out the requirement in the district. The
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Lucknow shall appoint a police officer not
below
the
rank
of
Additional
Superintendent of Police to monitor the
functioning of the Task Force so
constituted. District Magistrate Lucknow
shall nominate an Additional District
Magistrate
to
provide
necessary
assistance.

2. Whenever, a complaint is received
that Lucknow Development Authority or
U.P. Housing Board has allotted a plot
which is a water reservoir or is a pond,
then respective Development Authority or
Housing Board, shall look into such
complaint and in case, in the revenue
record, it is found that the said plot is a
water reservoir or a pond, then alternative
accommodation shall be provided to such
allottee immediately say within a period
of two months after recording the finding
with
due
communication
to
the
complainant. The Development Authority
or the Housing Board, Lucknow shall
appoint an officer to look into such
complaints to decide whether the plot
allotted to an allottee is a water reservoir
or a pond in the revenue record or not.
Opportunity of hearing shall be provided
to the complainant.

3. Right of a citizen to protest against
unlawful action of development authority
is a fundamental right, but, that protest
may be made at appropriate place (not at
the allottted plot or vicinity) without
1630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disturbing the peace and tranquility of the
society and also without interfering with
the right of a peaceful enjoyment of the
property by a lawful allottee.

4. Whenever, a complaint is received
that the lawful allottee intending to raise
construction over the premises in pursuance
of the sanctioned plan is being prevented by
anti-social elements or person or a group of
persons or by an association, the Task Force
so constituted shall ensure to remove such
hurdle and shall further ensure that lawful
allottee is permitted to raise construction
over the plot in pursuance of the sanction
plan and requisite number of police force
shall be deployed for the security of the
allottee during the construction work, if
necessary. It shall be open to police to
register F.I.R. & proceed in accordance to
law against disturbing elements.

16. Let Lucknow Development
Authority as well as U.P. Housing Board
Lucknow appoint a nodal officer to
receive complaints to adjudicate the
controversy in terms of the directions
issued hereinabove with regard to ponds
and water reservoirs within a period of
one month and also issue appropriate
directions or circulars accordingly.

17. The District Magistrate/Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow shall also
pass appropriate directions/circulars for
constituting the Task Force in terms of the
directions issued hereinabove within a period
of one month.

18. Let a compliance report be
submitted to this court immediately after
one month.

19. With the consent of learned
counsel for the parties and directions
issued hereinabove, both the writ petitions
are decided finally.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18432 of 2010
alongwith W.P. No. 64382 of 2010, W.P.
No. 21802 of 2010, W.P. No. 21928 of
2010,W.P. No. 27009 of 2010, W.P. No.
27010 of 2010; W.P. No. 28407 of 2010.

Shanti Dham School & Anr... .Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Bajrang Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Motor Vehicle Act-1988-Section 68(1)-
Power of State Transport Authorityfixation of age limit-of transport vehicleused for transportation of students-heldproper-in
absence
of
allegation
for
violation of Art. 14-can not be interferedkeeping the security of passengers and
to control pollution.

Held: Para-30
Here in the present case also as far as
this Court is concerned it will not at all
come to the rescue or reprieve of the
petitioner by directing the Respondents
not to fix age of vehicle at the point of
time of issuance of permit/continuance
of permit, as condition of permit, as
challenge made is unsustainable for the
reasons already mentioned above, the
same being in the realm of policy
decision for securing safety of passenger
and
control
pollution.