# Gauri Shankar v. District Judge, Maharajganj and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 254
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16930 of 1998
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gauri-shankar-v-district-judge-maharajganj-and-others-39250
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Act-Section
18Objection was filed by the petitioner
immediately after receiving the notice
pertaining to the compensation awardNeither the objection was decided nor
any reference has been made by the
Collector-the Collector was directed to
decide the objection.
Held - Para 6
The
writ
petition
succeeds
and
is
allowed. The orders dated 18.3.1998 and
6.4.1988, Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ
petition,
are
hereby
quashed.
The
Collector, Maharajganj is directed to
dispose of the petitioner's objection
dated 9.5.1985 under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act on merits by a
reasoned
order
after
affording
opportunity to the petitioner within
period of three months from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this
order before him.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
254
he has been transferred from Ghaziabad to
Gautam Buddh Nagar. However, he has
not
yet
vacated
the
official
accommodation in his possession at
Ghaziabad.
He
has
challenged
the
impugned order of the District Magistrate,
Ghaziabad dated 26.4.2001 Annexure-4 to
the writ petition by which the petitioner
has been ordered to be evicted from the
said accommodation.

3. It is deeply regrettable that the
petitioner is still retaining the official
accommodation at Ghaziabad although he
has been transferred to Gautam Budh
Nagar a long time back. If a government
servant does not vacate the official
accommodation
after
his
transfer/retirement his successor will have
no place to live in.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that the petitioner has not been
allotted any accommodation at Gautam
Budh Nagar. Be that as it may, the
petitioner cannot continue to occupy the
official accommodation at Ghaziabad
since he has been transferred from there.
He should have by now looked for some
private accommodation at Gautam Budh
Nagar. A large number of petitions have
come
to
this
Court
filed
by
the
government employees who have not
vacated the official accommodation even
after
transfer/retirement.
We
cannot
approve of this kind of practice.

5. The petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD FEBRUARY 13, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16930 of 1998

Gauri Shankar

...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Maharajganj and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Mishra
Sri Bajrangi Mishra
Sri Adeel Ahmad Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Land
Acquisition
Act-Section
18Objection was filed by the petitioner
immediately after receiving the notice
pertaining to the compensation awardNeither the objection was decided nor
any reference has been made by the
Collector-the Collector was directed to
decide the objection.
Held - Para 6
The
writ
petition
succeeds
and
is
allowed. The orders dated 18.3.1998 and
6.4.1988, Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ
petition,
are
hereby
quashed.
The
Collector, Maharajganj is directed to
dispose of the petitioner's objection
dated 9.5.1985 under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act on merits by a
reasoned
order
after
affording
opportunity to the petitioner within
period of three months from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this
order before him.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. The present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
1All] Gauri Shankar V. District Judge, Maharajganj and others
255
has been filed by the petitioner with the
following relief:-

"(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
orders passed by the respondent nos.
1 and 4 dated 18.3.1998 and 6.4.1988,
respectively;

(II) to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents no. 1 to 5 to make
reference of petitioner's claim under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act.

(III) to issue any other suitable writ, order
or direction, as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper to meet the
ends of justice.

(IV) to award cost of the writ petition to
the petitioner."

2. The facts leading to the filing of
present writ petition are that in the year
1983, petitioner's land as well as the lands
belonging to other persons were acquired
by the State Government for the purposes
of construction of the office of SubDivisional Officer, Mahrajganj. The Land
Acquisition Officer/District Magistrate,
Gorakhpur has given an award on
16.4.1985 by which the amount pertaining
to the said land of petitioner was
determined to the extent of Rs. 11,426.44.
It is submitted by petitioner's counsel that
petitioner has received a notice on
8.5.1985 pertaining to the aforesaid
compensation award and immediately on
9.5.1985 he filed his objection as
contemplated under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, which was served
in the office of respondent no.4 on the
same day. It is stated that the said
objection of the petitioner has not been
decided, nor any reference has been made
by the Collector. Being aggrieved with
the same petitioner filed writ petition
numbered as writ petition no. 20511 of
1989 before this Court, in which this
Court while disposing of the said writ
petition has passed the following order,
the operative portion thereof reads as
follows:-

"In view of the above, we direct the
Collector, Gorakhpur/Land Acquisition
Officer to consider the objection, if any,
filed by the petitioner on 9.5.1985
(Annexure-1
to
the
supplementary
affidavit) filed today, a receipt thereof has
been
filed
as
Annexure-1
to
the
supplementary affidavit. In case, any such
objection has been filed, the same will be
dealt with in accordance with law within a
period of two months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With these observations, the writ
petition is disposed of."

3. Inspite of the aforesaid mandamus
being communicated to the respondents, it
is alleged by the petitioner that his
application under Section 18 has not been
disposed of. Thereafter petitioner filed
another writ petition numbered as writ
petition no. 28100 of 1995, in which this
Court vide its order dated passed the
following final order the operative portion
thereof reads as follows:-

"Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, we, in the interest of justice,
dispose of this writ petition with this
direction that if the aforementioned
application is still pending, then the Land
Acquisition Officer respondent no. 2 shall
dispose it of. We also clarify that this
order shall not be construed to mean that
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
256
we are expressing any merit in the
aforementioned application, which is
required to be adjudicated by the
Respondent no. 2. We also clarify that if
there is any other order staying further
proceedings in that event our order shall
not be given effect to and that if the
records have not been dispatched to
District Mahrajganj, after bifurcation of
District Gorakhpur, in that event the
records will be sent to the corresponding
Land Acquisition Officer, for doing the
needful in accordance with law."

4. Inspite of this order again being
communication to the respondents, it is
alleged by the petitioner that since his
application under Section 18 of the Act
has not been decided, nor any reference
has been made in this regard, he therefore
filed fresh application on 28.1.1998 as
stated in the impugned order. By the
impugned order dated 18.3.1998 the said
application dated 28.1.1998 has been
rejected, though the same was supported
by an affidavit along with an application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The petitioner has stated that for the first
time the information of rejection of his
objection
dated
9.5.1985
was
communicated
to
the
petitioner
on
3.12.1997. Thereafter he was searching
out the papers from 4.12.1997 to 4.1.1998
and when the papers were not traced in
the office, he filed an application on
5.1.1998, pursuance whereof the file was
made
available
for
inspection
on
23.1.1998. The petitioner has applied for
the copy of the said documents on the
same day, which were made available to
him on 24.1.1998. Since 25.1.1998 was
Sunday and 26.1.1998 was a holiday on
account of Republic Day, he came on
27.1.1998 and filed a reference on
28.1.1998. The application filed by the
petitioner has been rejected by the District
Judge vide its order dated 18.3.1998
relying upon the decision in the case of
Kakabai
Versus
Land
Acquisition
Officer/District Collector, reported in
A.I.R. 1956 Punjab, 231, which says that
where the applicant knew it that if the
collector is not sending the reference to
the District Court as contemplated under
Section 18 of the Act, he should have
presented the petition before this Court or
before Hon'ble High court but the same
has not been done by the petitioner, nor
he has taken any steps before the
reference becomes barred by time. In this
view of the matter, since now the matter
has been more than 13 years old, the same
cannot now be accepted and reference be
made. The petitioner has given in detail
with meticulous accuracy of the dates and
a perusal thereof makes it clear that the
petitioner cannot be said to be slept over
in pursuing his application or reference
and in fact it is admitted by the
respondents that against the award dated
8.5.1985, petitioner's objection was filed
on 8.5.1985. In this view of the matter, it
cannot be said that the application under
Section 18 of the Act was filed beyond
time. The petitioner has filed two writ
petitions, as stated above, first in the year
1989 and second in the year 1995 with the
prayer that his application under Section
18 of the Act may be disposed of.
However, in the present impugned order it
has been stated that the objection of the
petitioner has been disposed of much
earlier than the filing of the first writ
petition before this Court. The order dated
6.4.1988 rejecting the objection filed by
the petitioner on 9.5.1985 has been
annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ
petition, a perusal whereof would clearly
demonstrates that the same cannot be said
to be an order on merits as the
1All] Smt. Babli alias Maya & anr. V. State of U.P. through Home Secretary & others
257
respondents have refused to refer the
matter to the District Judge concerned
while dealing with the objection raised by
the petitioner. In this view of the matter,
in my opinion, the petitioner has made out
a case for getting his objection under
Section 18 of the Act decided on merits
by the respondent/collector, which has not
been done inspite of the long history
stated hereinbefore.

5. Apart from the reasons stated
above, the order dated 18.3.1998 also
suffers from the manifest error of law,
inasmuch
as
the
petitioner
having
satisfactorily explained the reasons in the
second application could have been
referred or in case the Collection wanted
to refuse it, he should have dealt with it in
accordance with law in the light of the
objection raised by the petitioner. Even
the order dated 6.4.1988 is a laconic order
which
has
been
passed
without
application of mind.

6. In this view of the matter, the writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. The
orders dated 18.3.1998 and 6.4.1988,
Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition, are
hereby
quashed.
The
Collector,
Mahrajganj is directed to dispose of the
petitioner's
objection
dated
9.5.1985
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act on merits by a reasoned order after
affording opportunity to the petitioner
within a period of three months from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of
this order before him. However, there will
be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD FEBRUARY 26, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BINOD KUMAR ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE R.C. DEEPAK, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 545 of 2002

Smt. Babli Alias Maya and another

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Home Secretary,
Lucknow and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tej Pal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Verma
A.G.A.
Sri Anoop Singh
Sri U.K. Saxena

Constitution of India, Article 226-The
question as to whether petitioner no.1 is
minor or major, shall have a vital bearing
- the divergence in the two medical
opinion - a three Member Medical Board
was constituted. Even a major girl or
woman can not invoke any fundamental
right to live with a male who is having a
wife and child.

Held - Para 21 & 22

The Constitution of India vide Article 23
(1) forbids immoral traffic. So does the
Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. The
Indian
Penal
Code
and
the
Hindu
Marriage Act does not permit bigamy.
Section 18 of the Hindu Marriage Act
also prescribes punishment for violation
of conditions specified in Clauses (iii) of
Section 5. This Constitutional court if
proceeds to permit them to lead a
marital life it will apparently mean
perpetuating bigamy, which is an offence
under Sections 494 and 495 of the