# Govind Prasad Nishad v. The State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 354
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-11
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 20509 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/govind-prasad-nishad-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-53078
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - Mandamus -
Appointment - Claim made in lieu of
acquisition of land - GO dated 21.09.1981,
which was, later on, declared invalid,
relied upon - Permissibility - Held, no
lawful authority has been shown to be
vested in the Gorakhpur Development
Authority to create an independent policy
for grant of employment to land owners
beyond the terms of the Government
Order dated 21.09.1981 has been shown
to the Court - A mandamus cannot be
issued to compel St. authorities to act in
contravention of law. Judicial discipline
and rule of law forbids the Court to do so.
(Para 8 and 9)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of above cut off date rather their claim was
taken birth only after Banaras Hindu
University
adopted
the
Scheme
on
09.04.1988 and they have given option
before new cut off date, i.e., 09.07.1988,
therefore, the benefit of judgment in
University of Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran
(supra) would not be applicable to present
petitioners. Any other interpretation would
render date of adoption and any subsequent
cut off date meaningless.

 (d) It is not the case of petitioners
or Respondent-Banaras Hindu University
or even Union of India that Office
Memorandum
dated
01.05.1987
was
automatically applicable to all Central
Universities without being its specific
adoption by a particular University and
further that issue was not before the
Supreme Court in the case of University of
Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra).

31. In aforesaid circumstances, this
Court is of the view that relief sought by
petitioners cannot be granted. Impugned
orders, though are not legally sustainable
on grounds mentioned therein, since
Banaras Hindu University has adopted the
Scheme and that University of Delhi vs.
Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra) is a judgment
in rem not in personam, still once the Court
is of the opinion that benefit of judgment
passed by Supreme Court in University of
Delhi vs. Smt. Shashi Kiran (supra)
cannot be granted in given circumstances
of present cases, being distinguished on
facts and as discussed above, therefore,
there is no reason to interfere with orders
impugned in present petitions.

32.
All
Writ
Petitions
are
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 354
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ - A No. 20509 of 2024

Govind Prasad Nishad ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shreyas Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
K.R. Singh, Ashok Kumar, C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - Mandamus -
Appointment - Claim made in lieu of
acquisition of land - GO dated 21.09.1981,
which was, later on, declared invalid,
relied upon - Permissibility - Held, no
lawful authority has been shown to be
vested in the Gorakhpur Development
Authority to create an independent policy
for grant of employment to land owners
beyond the terms of the Government
Order dated 21.09.1981 has been shown
to the Court - A mandamus cannot be
issued to compel St. authorities to act in
contravention of law. Judicial discipline
and rule of law forbids the Court to do so.
(Para 8 and 9)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ravindra Kumar Vs District Magistrate & ors.;
2005(2)AWC1650

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

 Heard Shri Shreyas Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
K. R. Singh, learned counsel assisted by
3 All. Govind Prasad Nishad Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
355
Shri Triloki Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent.

2. The petitioner claims that he is
entitled to appointment in lieu of the
acquisition of his land by the Gorakhpur
Development Authority. The matter is
being agitated for more than three decades.
This Court deems it appropriate to bring the
controversy to a terminus at this stage and
decide the issue on merits.

3. The petitioner's claim is made on
the footing that a green card was issued on
31.07.1989 by the District Magistrate and
Vice Chairman of Gorakhpur Development
Authority recording that Smt. Atwari Devi
and her family members are entitled for
employment
in
the
Gorakhpur
Development Authority.

4.
The
respondent
Gorakhpur
Development Authority has asserted in the
counter affidavit that the petitioner has
made a claim for employment in the
Gorakhpur Development Authority on the
basis
of
Government
Order
dated
21.09.1981. By means of the aforesaid
Government Order, the State Government
had decided to grant employment to land
owners whose lands had been acquired for
commercial
purposes.
The
affidavit
categorically states that there was no
independent policy or separate scheme of
the Development Authority apart from the
Government Order for giving employment
to land owners in lieu of acquisition of their
lands. The said averments in the counter
affidavit have not been specifically refuted
by the petitioner. The denial in the
rejoinder
affidavit
is
bald
and
is
accordingly rejected.

5. The said Government Order dated
21.09.1981 was declared invalid by the Full
Bench of this Court in Ravindra Kumar
vs District Magistrate And Ors reported
at 2005(2)AWC1650 by holding thus:

"20. It is a general rule that
appointments in the public services should
be made by inviting applications through
open advertisement and strictly on merit so
that every citizen should get equal
opportunity in the matter of appointment.
This rule should be adhered to in the matter
of any public employment or appointment.
Neither the State Government nor its
instrumentality nor any public authority can
deviate
from
this
common
rule
of
appointment and if any other procedure or
mode is adopted, it would be violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India which ensures and guarantees equal
opportunity to all citizens in the matter of
appointment to any office or of any other
employment under the State. However,
some exceptions to the general rule for
public employment or appointment is also
recognized which is commonly known as
appointment on compassionate ground
which is evolved purely on humanitarian
ground and in the interest of justice. This
rule
was
made
to
meet
certain
contingencies and to give appointment to a
dependant of an employee dying-in-harness
to prevent his family from destitution.

21. The Land Acquisition Act is a
self-contained Code and provides the
procedure to be followed for acquisition as
well as for assessment of the valuation and
payment of fair and just compensation as
per market value of the person whose land
is acquired. In addition to that market value
of the land interest @ 12% is also given
from the date of publication of the
Notification vide Section 23(1-A). Besides
that, a sum of 30% on such market value is
also paid as solatium for distress and for
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inconvenience or difficulties caused to the
person
on
account
of
compulsory
acquisition of the land vide Section 23(2)
of the Act. Therefore, a person whose land
is
acquired
not
only gets
adequate
compensation as per market value of the
land but also gets interest on the amount of
compensation (a) 12% from the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act as
well as an amount of solatium, which is
30% of the amount of compensation.
Neither the Land Acquisition Act nor the
regulations provides that in the event of
acquisition of the land one of the family
members of the landholder shall be given
employment in addition to the amount of
compensation. Therefore, in the absence of
any statutory provision or any promise, the
petitioner
respondent
cannot
claim
appointment as a matter of right nor can the
respondent make such appointment.

22. There is no provision under
the Land Acquisition Act under which the
Circular dated 28.12.1974 could be issued.
Whatever compensation has to be given for
acquisition of the land is provided under
the Land Acquisition Act itself which is a
self-contained Code. Any G.O. providing
for any further benefit not mentioned in the
Land
Acquisition
Act
would
be
inconsistent
with
the
intention
of
Parliament as contained in the Land
Acquisition Act. Hence any such GO.
would be violative of the Land Acquisition
Act and would hence be invalid. Such a
G.O. will also violate Article 16 of the
Constitution as already mentioned above.

23. That apart, in our opinion, the
aforesaid G.O. is wholly unworkable. The
record shows mat the petitioner had onlv 12
biswas and ten biswansi land in his share
which was acquired. Thus only about half a
bigha of the petitioner's land was acquired
in the present case. If the Circular dated
28.12.1974 is given a literal interpretation
it would mean that if even one square yard
land of a person is acquired one of his
family members would have to be given
employment.
This
would
be
wholly
unreasonable and arbitrary.

24. The number of jobs available
in this country is very limited and jobs
cannot be given in this manner violating
Article 16 of the Constitution.

 25. In view of the above we
answer the questions referred to us as
follows :

1.
The
Government
Orders/Circulars providing employment to
one member of a family of a person whose
land has been acquired (over and above the
compensation awarded under the law) are
invalid.

 2. The acquiring body for whose
benefit the land is acquired are not bound
by such Government Order/Circular.

 3. No writ can be issued directing
the acquiring body to consider the claim in
accordance
with
the
aforesaid
Order/Government Circular."

6. The following facts have been
established before this Court after exchange
of pleadings.

7. The State Government by order
dated 21.09.1981 provided that members of
the family whose land had been acquired
would be entitled to employment in the
concerned department. The land of the
petitioner was acquired by the Gorakhpur
Development Authority. The Gorakhpur
Development Authority issued a green card
3 All. Dharm Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
357
to the petitioner assuring him such
employment
clearly
in
pursuance
of
Government Order dated 21.09.1981. There
is no separate or independent policy which
was being implemented by the Gorakhpur
Development Authority for land owners
whose land have been acquired. The green
card cannot vest rights in the petitioner
beyond the Government Order dated
21.09.1981. The Government Order dated
21.09.1981 has been quashed by the
learned Full Bench of this Court in
Ravindra Kumar (supra).

8. No lawful authority has been
shown to be vested in the Gorakhpur
Development
Authority
to
create
an
independent
policy
for
grant
of
employment to land owners beyond the
terms of the Government Order dated
21.09.1981 has been shown to the Court.

9. In this wake the prayer made by
the petitioner to mandamus the Respondent
no. 2 Gorakhpur Development Authority to
grant employment to the petitioner in
pursuance
of
the
said
Green
Card
(Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition)
cannot be granted, inasmuch as, the same
would be in the teeth of the judgement of
Full Bench in Ravindra Kumar (supra).
A mandamus cannot be issued to compel
State authorities to act in contravention of
law. Judicial discipline and rule of law
forbids the Court to do so.

10. In wake of the preceding
discussion, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 357
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 7777 of 2024

Dharm Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal
Law-The
Constitution
of
India,1950-Artcle 227, 20(2)-Doctrine of
Double
jeopardy-
The
plea
of
Double
Jeopardy as relied by learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2 has no application, because
the respondent was neither convicted nor
acquitted in any matter previously having the
same set of facts--- learned court below instead
of taking cognizance under Sections 279, 304A
IPC has taken cognizance under Sections 304,
323, 325 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC which
is well in accordance with law and is not barred
by the doctrine of Double Jeopardy---Impugned
order dated 13.03.2024 passed by learned court
below is hereby set aside as it is not barred by
Article 20(2)- (Para 23, 25-27)--Petition
partly allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

TP Gopalakrishnan Vs St. of Kerala (2022) 14
SCC 323

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi
Bhushan Rai, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2, Sri Ratan Singh, learned
A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the
record.

2. By means of the present petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed to set aside