# Dr. (Smt) Shobha Gupta v. Union of India - **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1095 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-09-21 - **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 9419 of 2010 - **Bench:** F.I. Rebello, C.J. Pradeep Kant - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-smt-shobha-gupta-v-union-of-india-41728 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Art 226Application for agency-for distribution of LPG Gas vitarak-rejected on ground non possessing land with her own namefather-in-law given affidavit-in case agency given-land shall be Transferred with her name-admittedly the petitioner is the wife of married son-not coverred within the definition of family rejectionheld-proper. Held: Para 8 We may deal with the contention as now raised on behalf of the petitioner herein insofar as the definition of Family Unit is concerned. No doubt, the respondent no. 2 would be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it will be bound by the principles laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution, but at the same time, as has been held by the Supreme Court in its various pronouncement, respondent no. 2 can also act as an private individual in the field of contract. In the instant case, the agency is to be given to a person who owns the land, either in his/her own name or in the name of a member as defined in the Family Unit. The Family Unit is restricted to applicant, applicant's spouse and unmarried son(s) / daughter(s). Admittedly, the petitioner is the daughter-in-law. In other words the wife of 'married son' who does not fall within the definition of family unit. ## Text 3 All] Dr. (Smt) Shobha Gupta V. Union of India 1095 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 21.09.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE F.I. REBELLO, C.J. THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J. Misc. Bench No. 9419 of 2010 Dr. (Smt) Shobha Gupta ...Petitioner Versus Union of India ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Ashok Pande Counsel for the Respondent: A.S.G. Manish Jauhari Constitution of India, Art 226Application for agency-for distribution of LPG Gas vitarak-rejected on ground non possessing land with her own namefather-in-law given affidavit-in case agency given-land shall be Transferred with her name-admittedly the petitioner is the wife of married son-not coverred within the definition of family rejectionheld-proper. Held: Para 8 We may deal with the contention as now raised on behalf of the petitioner herein insofar as the definition of Family Unit is concerned. No doubt, the respondent no. 2 would be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it will be bound by the principles laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution, but at the same time, as has been held by the Supreme Court in its various pronouncement, respondent no. 2 can also act as an private individual in the field of contract. In the instant case, the agency is to be given to a person who owns the land, either in his/her own name or in the name of a member as defined in the Family Unit. The Family Unit is restricted to applicant, applicant's spouse and unmarried son(s) / daughter(s). Admittedly, the petitioner is the daughter-in-law. In other words the wife of 'married son' who does not fall within the definition of family unit. (Delivered by Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent no. 2-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. had issued an advertisement for allotment of an agency, which is known as Rajeev Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitarak (RGGLV) in October, 2009 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement. One of the conditions is that the person seeking agency should own a suitable land at advertised location for LPG godown & showroom. 3. The word 'own' has been defined to mean as clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant / family member of the 'Family Unit'. 'Family Unit' has been defined to include a married applicant which shall consist of the applicant, applicant's spouse and unmarried son(s) / daughter(s). 'Family Unit' of an unmarried applicant shall consist of applicant, applicant's parents and applicant's unmarried brother(s) / sister(s). 4. The petitioner herein applied for the said agency. Insofar as the requirement of land as per the advertisement is concerned, she has relied on an affidavit of her fatherin-law that in the event, the petitioner succeeds in getting the agency, he would 1096 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 transfer the land in the name of the petitioner, apart from giving her an amount of Rs.2.50 lacs for construction of the Godown and Showroom. 5. The respondent no. 2 intimated to the petitioner by communications dated 17th May, 2010 and 16th August, 2010 that she had not been found to be eligible for RGGLV, as she did not have the land at the advertised location and as the land for Godown as shown at Item No. 9 of the application is in the name of Shri Ram Avtar Gupta, her father-in-law, who did not fall under the definition of family unit as defined in the advertisement. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel submits that the definition of 'Family Unit' in the application is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the first instance, the petitioner, at the time of making application for agency, knew the requirements, even then she chose to take a chance. Having failed, she has now sought to challenge the same. We are of the opinion that the writ petition as filed would not be maintainable and the Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of a party like the petitioner herein. 8. We may deal with the contention as now raised on behalf of the petitioner herein insofar as the definition of Family Unit is concerned. No doubt, the respondent no. 2 would be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it will be bound by the principles laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution, but at the same time, as has been held by the Supreme Court in its various pronouncement, respondent no. 2 can also act as an private individual in the field of contract. In the instant case, the agency is to be given to a person who owns the land, either in his/her own name or in the name of a member as defined in the Family Unit. The Family Unit is restricted to applicant, applicant's spouse and unmarried son(s) / daughter(s). Admittedly, the petitioner is the daughter-in-law. In other words the wife of 'married son' who does not fall within the definition of family unit. 9. Question is whether it was open to respondent no. 2 to lay down any such condition. Also whether in such a situation, the land owned by the father-in-law of the applicant can be said to be in the ownership of the petitioner herein. The answer is clearly in negative. The second test would be whether an affidavit on behalf of the father-in-law that he would transfer the land if the petitioner succeeds, can enlarge the meaning of the expression 'Family Unit'. In our opinion, once Family Unit has been defined and from the definition of the 'Family Unit', the intention becomes clear that the land must be owned by the applicant or the member of the family unit. It is in that context that persons, other than unmarried son(s) / daughter(s), have not been included in the definition of Family Unit. Normally a married son and married daughter would be having an independent livelihood. 10. In our opinion, the classification made in the advertisement between the married and unmarried cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable considering the object of the scheme. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the second contention also. 3 All] Bhagwan Singh and others V Additional Commissioner, Meerut and others 1097 11. The petition stands dismissed accordingly. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13172 of 1988 Bhagwan Singh and others ...Petitioner Versus Additional Commissioner, Meerut and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.N. Singh Sri A.K. Rai Sri R.N. Singh Sri V.K. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K.S. Chauhan S.C. U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on land Holding Act, 1960 Section 27(6)-Suo moto Power exercise by commissioner within 7 years from the date of grant of Patta of surplus land-Patta approved on 10.03.77 by SDM-section 27 enforced w.e.f. 10.11 80 vide U.P. Act No. 20/1982-further enhanced from two to 7 years vide U.P. Act No. 24/86-logical interpretation period of 7 years be counted from the date 10.11.80 when section 6 introduced-not from the date of actual grant. Held: Para 11 This Court therefore holds that the period of limitation for exercise of powers by the Commissioner under Section 27(6)-A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act would start from 10.11.1980 so far as the lease and settlements prior to the said date are concerned and the actual date on which the lease/settlement was granted is wholly irrelevant. (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.) 1. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 28.6.1988 wherein in exercise of powers under Section 27 of sub-clause 4 and 6 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 on 10.11.1980 with the petitioner has been cancelled after exercise of suo moto powers. 2. The order impugned Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition is challenged before this Court only on one ground namely the proceedings under Section 27(6) Act No. 1 of 1961 were initiated beyond the prescribed period of "seven years" provided for under the said clause. Therefore, the entire proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, the period of "seven years" has to be counted from the date of issuance of the patta in the facts of the case on 10.3.1977. The notice under Section 6 itself has been issued on 4.9.1986 i.e. after 7 years therefore is bad. 3. Standing Counsel in reply contends that an amendment was made by U.P. Act No. 26 of 1980 were in the words "two years" as existing in Section 27(6) were substituted by the words "seven years". This amendment came into force on 10.11.1980 and the period of seven years has to be counted after said dated i.e. 10.11.1980. The impugned proceedings are therefore within time. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have examined the records.