# Hafiz Naushad Ahmad & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 339
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-16
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 4585 of 2021
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hafiz-naushad-ahmad-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-47075
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections
370, 371, 372, 373 & 374 - Compensation
on
account
of
accidental
death
-
Disbursement - D.M. not making payment
of compensation on ground petitioners not
produced succession certificate - Held -
parents of deceased cannot be asked to
produce succession certificate- Succession
certificate can be granted only in respect
of "debts" or "securities" to which a
deceased was entitled - word "security" as
defined in Section 370(2) does not include
compensation - there is no requirement to
obtain a succession certificate under the
provisions of Part X (Sections 370 to 390)
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to
receive compensation amount awarded on
account of death of the son of the
petitioners (Para 12)

Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

6 All. Hafiz Naushad Ahmad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
339

14. So far as the closure of complaint of
the petitioner by Banking Ombudsman is
concerned, we find that the complaint of the
petitioner was closed merely on the ground
that the ground of complaint do not fall
within clause 8 of the Banking Ombudsman
Scheme 2006.

15. Perusal of Clause 8 of the Banking
Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 shows that it
does not cover the controversy as involved in
the present writ petition. Therefore, the
closure of the complaint by the Banking
Ombudsman does not come in the way of the
petitioner to get credit of the unauthorized
transactions in terms of Clause 9 of the
Reserve Bank of India Policy.

16. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is partly allowed.

17. The respondent no. 2 i.e. the Punjab
National Bank, Subedarganj, Prayagraj is
directed to take action and give credit of the
unauthorizedly withdrawn amount to the
petitioner in terms of the aforenoted policy of
the RBI, expeditiously, preferably within ten
days from the date of presentation of a copy
of this order.
----------

(2021)06ILR A339
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ-C No. 4585 of 2021

Hafiz Naushad Ahmad & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shri Mohammad Ali Ausaf, Shri V.K. Singh
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G.I., Shri Manu Vardhana

Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections
370, 371, 372, 373 & 374 - Compensation
on
account
of
accidental
death
-
Disbursement - D.M. not making payment
of compensation on ground petitioners not
produced succession certificate - Held -
parents of deceased cannot be asked to
produce succession certificate- Succession
certificate can be granted only in respect
of "debts" or "securities" to which a
deceased was entitled - word "security" as
defined in Section 370(2) does not include
compensation - there is no requirement to
obtain a succession certificate under the
provisions of Part X (Sections 370 to 390)
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to
receive compensation amount awarded on
account of death of the son of the
petitioners (Para 12)

Allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rukhsana (Smt) & ors. Vs Nazrunnisa (Smt)
& anr. 2000 (9) SCC 240

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Ali
Ausaf, learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned standing counsel for the State -
respondents and Sri Manu Vardhana,
learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief : -

(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding
the
respondent
no.2
to
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
immediately ensure the payment of amount
of compensation of Rs. 60,60,606/- (SR.
3,00,000) alongwith interest thereon as
awarded in favour of the petitioners by the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia due to accidental
death of his son (Late Mohd. Faize)
through cheque No.291792 dated 9.8.2020
in favour of District Magistrate, Mau vide
letter dated 11.08.2020 through Embassy of
India Riyadh;

(b) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to take
immediate decision for ensuring/releasing
of
amount
of
compensation
of
Rs.
60,60,606/- (SR. 3,00000/) awarded in
favour of the petitioners by the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia due to accidental death of his
son (Late Mohd. Faize) through cheque
No.291792 dated 9.8.2020 in favour of
District Magistrate, Mau vide letter dated
11.08.2020 through Embassy of India
Riyadh as requested by the petitioners
through applications dated 7.10.2020 and
28.12.2020.

Facts :

3. The petitioners are the parents of
their unmarried son late Mohd. Faize who
died in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on
24.08.2019 in a road accident. Salary of the
deceased son of the petitioners was
remitted by the Embassy of India, Riyadh
to the District Magistrate, Mau (India) by a
Cheque
No.291167
dated
10.09.2019
Rs.26,577/- of State Bank of India. To get
payment of the aforesaid salary amount, the
petitioner herein obtained a succession
certificate dated 03.03.2020 from the court
of
Civil
Judge
(Junior
Division),
Mohammadabad Gohna, Mau. Office of the
District Magistrate, Mau also issued a
Letter No.145 dated 14.10.2020 certifying
that the family of the deceased consists of
only the petitioners who are parents of the
deceased.

4.

Subsequently,
the
District
Magistrate,
Mau
received
a
cheque
No.291792 dated 09.08.2020 of State Bank
of
India
for
Rs.60,60,606/-
for
compensation in respect of death of the
deceased, for making payment to the
successors of the deceased. The petitioners
being the only successors/ parents of the
deceased,
have
been
approaching
continuously to the respondent No.3, i.e.
the District Magistrate, Mau for release of
the payment but the District Magistrate is
not making the payment of the aforesaid
compensation amount. As per instructions
of the respondent No.3 dated 27.02.2021
received by the learned standing counsel,
the District Magistrate is not making
payment of compensation to the petitioners
on the ground that the petitioners have not
produced a succession certificate in respect
of the aforesaid amount of compensation. It
has further been stated in the instructions
that guidance has been sought from the
State Government for making payment of
compensation to the petitioner but guidance
has not been received from the State
Government.

5. The aforesaid compensation
amount was sent by the Embassy of India,
Riyadh to the District Magistrate, Mau vide
letter
dated
11.08.2020,
which
is
reproduced below:

"EMBASSY OF INDIA

RIVADH

REGISTERED POST

No.RIY/CW/436/805/2019

Dated:11.08.2020

District Magistrate

Mau District
6 All. Hafiz Naushad Ahmad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
341

Uttar Pradesh, India.

Sub: Payment of legal dues in respect
of Late Shri. Mohd Faize

Dear Sir,

Enclosed please find a State Bank
of India Cheque No. 291792 dated
09.08.2020 for Rs.60,60,606 (Rupees Sixty
Lakh Sixty Thousand Six hundred Six only)
equivalent to SR.3,00000/- pertaining to
legal dues and end of service in respect of
(late) Shri. Mohd Faize, who died in Saudi
Arabia

2. The address of the legal heirs of the
deceased, according to our records, is as
under.

Shri Hafiz Naushad Ahmad,

Flo (Late) Shri. Mohd Faize

R/o, Vill Nagripar, Post Bandikala,
Teh Mohammadabad

Gohna, Mau.Dist, Uttar Pradesh,
India

3. We shall be grateful if the above
amount is disbursed to all the legal heirs
after due inquiry/verification and the
receipt duly signed by the legal heirs may
be returned to this Embassy at the earliest.

4. The cheque may kindly be
deposited in the official account before its
expiry as issue of fresh cheque in lieu is a
long drawn procedures, which delay the
payment to the legal heirs.

Copy to:

1.Shri Hafiz Naushad Ahmad, F/o
(Late) Shri. Mohd Faize, R/o, Vill
Nagripar,
Post
Bandikala,
Teh
Mohammadabad Gohna, Mau Dist, Uttar
Pradesh, India. You are requested to
approach
the
district
authority
for
collecting the amount.

2.
Ministry
of
External
Affairs,
Consular Section, New Delhi

3. The Secretary, (Home Department),
Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

4. Passport Office, Lucknow for
making entry regarding cancellation of
Passport No.M4260343 dated 09.12.2014
issued to Shri. Mohd Faze.

(Rajeev Ranjan)

ASO (CW)"

6. The office of the District
Magistrate has issued a letter/ certificate
no.145 dated 14.10.2020 certifying the
successors of the deceased. The aforesaid
letter/ certificate dated 14.10.2020 is
reproduced below:

"dk;kZy; ftykf/kdkjh&eÅA

i=kad 1451@ izek.k i= fy0@eÅ@20 fnukad
14&10&2020

ikfjokfjd fooj.k i=

1⁄4;g izek.k i= ojklr ds eqdnek] vk;dj ds
fy, iz;qDr ugha gksxk1⁄2

rglhynkj eq0ckn dh vk[;k fnukad 12-102020 ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS Jh eks-
QSth iq=@iq=h@iRuh gkfQt ukS'kkn vgen xzke
uxjhikj rglhy- eq0ckn tuin eÅ dh e`R;q fnukad
24-8-2019 dks gks pqdh gSA rglhynkj eq0ckn dh
vk[;k fnukad 12-10-2020 ds vk/kkj ij mDr ds
ikfjokfjd lnL; fuEufyf[kr gS%&

Sdzekad
Ikfjokfjd
lnL;
e`rd
ds
lEcU/k
vk;q
vU;
fooj.k
1.
2

3
4
1. gkfQt
ukS'kkn
vgen
2- 'kkghu
ckuks

firk
ekrk
56 Ok"kZ
56 o"kZ

mijksDr dzekad 1 yxk;r 2 ds vykok e`rd ds
vU; okfjl ugh gSA
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
--

uksV%& ;g izek.k i= dsoy iz'kklfud tkap ij
vk/kkfjr gSA U;k;ky; esa py jgs ojklr ds eqdnek
ds fy, ;g ykxw ugha gksxkA iznf'kZr fofHkUu dkuwuksa
vkSj vf/kfu;eksa ftlesa dh ;g vis{kk gS fd fookfnr
ns;dksa Hkqxrku dks izkIr djus ds fy, tuin
U;k;k/kh'k }kjk fuxZr mRrjkf/kdkj izek.k i= gh ekU;
gksxkA mu ekeyksa esa ;g izek.k i= dsoy ikap gtkj
ls de dh /kujkf'k ij gh ekU; gksxkA ;g izek.k i=
fons'k Hkstus ds fy, ekU; ugha gSA
izHkkjh vf/kdkjh izek.k i=
d`rs ftykf/kdkjh

7. From the letter of the Embassy
dated 11.08.2020, it appears that a clear
direction has been issued to the District
Magistrate to pay the amount of aforesaid
compensation to the legal heirs of the
deceased as mentioned in the records of
the
Embassy,
after
due
inquiry/verification. It appears that due
inquiry/ verification has been made,
which fact is evident from the letter/
certificate dated 14.10.2020 issued by the
office of the District Magistrate, Mau,
which has been reproduced above.

8. Aggrieved with the arbitrary
action of the respondent no.3 in not
disbursing the amount, the petitioners
have filed the present writ petition
praying for the relief as quoted above.

Discussion and Findings

9. It is undisputed that the
petitioners are parents of the deceased.
There is no successor other than them as
is also evident from the letter/certificate
of the office of the District Magistrate,
Mau, dated 14.10.2020, which was issued
after due inquiry. As to whether the law
required a person to obtain succession
certificate to receive an amount of
compensation is the basic question
involved in the present writ petition.
Yesterday, this case was heard at length
and with the consent of learned counsels
for the parties, following questions were
framed :

(i) Whether under the facts and
circumstances of the case particularly in
view of the afore-quoted letter of the
Embassy dated 11.08.2020 and the letter/
certificate of the office of the respondent
No.3 dated 14.10.2020, any succession
certificate is required for disbursing the
amount
of
compensation
to
the
petitioners?

(ii) If the answer to the aforesaid
question is in affirmative, then under
what provision of law, a succession
certificate is required under the facts and
circumstances of the case?

10. The insistence of learned
standing counsel is that under Sections
370 and 374 of the Indian Succession
Act, a Succession certificate is required
to be obtained to enable the petitioners to
get the amount of compensation awarded
in respect of the death of their son. We do
not find any substance in the submission.

11. Sections 370, 371, 372, 373 and
374 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are
relevant for the purposes of the present case
and,
therefore,
these
Sections
are
reproduced below :-

370.
Restriction
on
grant
of
certificates
under
this
part.--(1)
A
succession certificate (hereinafter in this
Part referred to as a certificate) shall not
be granted under this Part with respect to
any debt or security to which a right is
required by section 212 or section 213 to
6 All. Hafiz Naushad Ahmad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
343
be established by letters of administration
or probate:

Provided that nothing contained in
this section shall be deemed to prevent the
grant of a certificate to any person
claiming to be entitled to the effects of a
deceased Indian Christian, or to any part
thereof, with respect to any debt or
security, by reason that a right thereto can
be established by letters of administration
under this Act.

(2) For the purposes of this Part,
"security" means--

(a) any promissory note, debenture,
stock or other security of the Central
Government or of a State Government;

(b) any bond, debenture, or annuity
charged by Act of Parliament [of the
United Kingdom] on the revenues of India;

(c) any stock or debenture of, or share
in, a company or other incorporated
institution;

(d) any debenture or other security for
money issued by, or on behalf of, a local
authority;

(e) any other security which the [State
Government] may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, declare to be a security
for the purposes of this Part.

371. Court having jurisdiction to
grant
certificate.--The
District
Judge
within whose jurisdiction the deceased
ordinarily resided at the time of his death,
or, if at that time he had no fixed place of
residence, the District Judge, within whose
jurisdiction any part of the property of the
deceased may be found, may grant a
certificate under this Part.

372. Application for certificate.--(1)
Application for such a certificate shall be
made to the District Judge by a petition
signed and verified by or on behalf of the
applicant in the manner prescribed by the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
for the signing and verification of a plaint
by or on behalf of a plaintiff, and setting
forth the following particulars, namely:--

(a) the time of the death of the
deceased;

(b) the ordinary residence of the
deceased at the time of his death and, if
such residence was not within the local
limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge to
whom the application is made, then the
property of the deceased within those
limits;

(c) the family or other near relatives of
the
deceased
and
their
respective
residences;

(d) the right in which the petitioner
claims;

(e) the absence of any impediment
under section 370 or under any other
provision of this Act or any other
enactment, to the grant of the certificate or
to the validity thereof if it were granted;
and

(f) the debts and securities in respect
of which the certificate is applied for.

(2) If the petition contains any
averment which the person verifying it
knows or believes to be false, or does not
believe to be true, that person shall be
deemed to have committed an offence
under section 198 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).

(3) Application for such a certificate
may be made in respect of any debt or
debts due to the deceased creditor or in
respect of portions thereof.

373. Procedure on application.--(1) If
the District Judge is satisfied that there is
ground for entertaining the application, he
shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and
cause notice of the application and of the
day fixed for the hearing--

(a) to be served on any person to
whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special
notice of the application should be given,
and
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) to be posted on some conspicuous
part of the court-house and published in
such other manner, if any, as the Judge,
subject to any rules made by the High
Court in this behalf, thinks fit,

and upon the day fixed, or as soon
thereafter as may be practicable, shall
proceed to decide in a summary manner the
right to the certificate.

(2) When the Judge decides the right
thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge
shall make an order for the grant of the
certificate to him.

(3) If the Judge cannot decide the right
to
the
certificate
without
determining
questions of law or fact which seem to be too
intricate and difficult for determination in a
summary proceeding, he may nevertheless
grant a certificate to the applicant if he
appears to be the person having prima facie
the best title thereto.

(4) When there are more applicants than
one for a certificate, and it appears to the
Judge that more than one of such applicants
are interested in the estate of the deceased,
the Judge may, in deciding to whom the
certificate is to be granted, have regard to the
extent of interest and the fitness in other
respects of the applicants.

374. Contents of certificate.--When the
District Judge grants a certificate, he shall
therein specify the debts and securities set
forth in the application for the certificate, and
may thereby empower the person to whom
the certificate is granted--
(a) to receive interest or dividends on, or

(b) to negotiate or transfer, or

(c) both to receive interest or dividends
on, and to negotiate or transfer, the securities
or any of them.

12. Bare reading of Sections 370 and
374 of the Act makes it clear that a
Succession Certificate can be granted in
respect of debts and Securities. The word
"security" has been defined in Section 370(2)
of the Act which does not include
compensation. Therefore, in our considered
view there is no requirement to obtain a
succession certificate under the provisions of
Part X (Sections 370 to 390) of the Indian
Succession
Act,
1925
to
receive
compensation amount awarded on account of
death of the son of the petitioners.

Disbursement of compensation where
there is no dispute of legal representative

13. In the present set of facts there is
no dispute that the petitioners are the legal
representative of their deceased son being
his parents. As a matter of fact the
respondent no.3, after conducting some
inquiry; has also issued a certificate
No.145, dated 14.10.2020, as quoted above,
wherein it has been certified that the
petitioners are the only members of the
deceased's family. Learned counsel for the
petitioners have also produced before us a
copy of the order dated 27.01.2020, passed
by the Chief of the Public Court of Shaqra
Province Second Public Circuit, Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, which is kept on record.
Perusal of the order shows that the
petitioners being legal heirs of their
deceased son Mohd. Faize, have filed the
claim through their attorney which was
adjudicated by the aforesaid court and an
order of compensation of 300,000 Saudi
Rials was passed to be divided between
them being 200,000 Saudi Riyal to the
petitioner no.1 and 100,000/- Saudi Riyal
to the petitioner no.2. The aforesaid order
also considered the certificate issued from
the office of the District Magistrate, Mau,
dated 17.10.2019. A copy of the aforesaid
order dated 17.10.2019, has been produced
by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
which is kept on record and is reproduced
below :-
6 All. Hafiz Naushad Ahmad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
345

 "कायाालय चजलाचर्कािी -मऊ।

पत्रांक 1343/प्रमाण पत्र चल0/मऊ/19

चदनांक 17-10-2019

पारिवारिक चवविण पत्र

(यह प्रमाण पत्र विासत के मुकदमा,
आयकि के चलए प्रयुक्त नहीं होगा)

तहसीलदाि
मुहम्मदािाद
गोहना
की
आख्या चदनांक 15-10-2019 के आर्ाि पि
प्रमाचणत चकया जाता है श्री मु0 फौजी पुत्र नौशाद
अमहद ग्राम नगिीपाि तहसील मुहम्मदािाद
गोहना जनपद मऊ की मृत्यु चदनांक 24-8-2019
को हो िुकी है। तहसीलदाि मुहम्मदािाद
गोहना की आख्या चदनांक 15-10-2019 के
आर्ाि पि उक्त के पारिवारिक सदस्य
चनम्नचलखखत हैं-

िमां
क

पारिवारि
क सदस्य

मृतक
से
सम्ब
ि
आ
यु
अन्य
चववि
ण
1
2

3
4
(1)
नौशाद
अहमद
चपता
57
वषा

(2)
शाचहना
िानो
माता
52
वषा

उपिोक्त िमांक/लगायत 2 तक के अलावा
मृतक का अन्य कोई वारिस नहीं है।

नोट- यह प्रमाण पत्र केवल प्रशासचनक
जांि पि आर्ारित है। न्यायालय में िल िहे
विासत के मुकदमा के चलये यह लागू नहीं होगा।
प्रदचशात चवचभन्न कानूनों औि अचर्चनयमों चजसमें
की यह अपेक्षा है चक चववाचदत देयकों भुगतान
को प्राप्त किने के चलये जनपद न्यायार्ीश द्वािा
चनगात उत्तिाचर्काि प्रमाण पत्र ही मान्य होगा।
उन मामलों में यह प्रमाण पत्र केवल पांि हजाि
से कम की र्निाशी पि ही मान्य होगा। यह
प्रमाण पत्र चवदेश भेजने के चलये मान्य नहीं है।

सील अपिनीय

ह0 अपिनीय
प्रभािी अचर्कािी (प्रमाण पत्र)

कृते चजलाचर्कािी

मऊ।"

14. Perusal of the aforesaid order
dated 17.10.2019 shows that it was issued
by the office of District Magistrate, Mau,
after obtaining an inquiry report dated
15.10.2019, with regard to the family
members and it was found that the
petitioners being father and mother are the
only family members of the deceased
Mohd. Faize. Thus, it is undisputed that
after due inquiry the respondent no.3 has
found the petitioners to be the heirs and
legal representatives of their deceased son
Mohd. Faize and on that basis the order
dated 27.01.2020 was passed by the Chief
of the Public Court of Shaqra Province
Second Public Circuit, Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, granting compensation to the
petitioners in the ratio as aforementioned.
On receipt of the Cheque of compensation
of Rs. 60,60,606/- the District Magistrate,
Mau, again conducted some inquiry and
issued an order dated 14.10.2020 after
obtaining inquiry report dated 12.12.2020
and certified that the petitioners being
father and mother of the deceased, are the
only family members of the deceased.
Thus, the respondent no.3 i.e. the District
Magistrate, Mau, must have disbursed the
amount to the petitioners but for the
reasons best known to him he withheld the
disbursement of the amount on one pretext
or the other.

Whether
for
compensation
of
present nature a succession certificate is
required
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. We have already held that
compensation is neither a debt nor security
and, therefore, the provisions of part X of
the Indian Succession Act, 1925, shall not
apply in matters of compensation. We are
also fortified by the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rukhsana
(Smt) and Ors. Vs. Nazrunnisa (Smt)
and Anr., 2000 (9) SCC 240, in which
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered similar
facts and held as under :-

"3. We cannot approve the said
view of the High Court, for, Succession
Certificate as envisaged in the Indian
Succession Act can be granted only in
respect of "debts" or "securities" to which a
deceased
was
entitled.
The
amount
involved in this case was not a debt or
security to which the deceased was entitled.
This was a compensation sanctioned on
account of the death of the deceased and is,
therefore, not an asset belonging to the
deceased but an amount which the legal
representatives of the deceased can claim
on their own account. The civil court will
only decide as to who are the legal
representatives and in what shares they are
entitled to as per the Personal Law
applicable to them. The Parties will move
appropriate application before the court
concerned for expediting the procedure
regarding disbursement of the amount.
With these observations we set aside the
impugned order."

16. For the reasons aforestated, we
find that the District Magistrate, Mau, is
bound
to
disburse
the
amount
of
compensation to the petitioners who are the
legal heirs and representatives of the
deceased Mohd. Faize. Therefore, we direct
the respondent no.3 to disburse the amount
of compensation forthwith. Petitioners are
granted liberty to move an application
before the respondent no.3 for payment of
interest for the period the aforesaid amount
of
compensation
has
been
illegally
withheld by the respondent no.3. In the
event such an application is filed by the
petitioners within four months alongwith a
copy of this order, the respondent no.3 shall
pass an appropriate order in accordance
with law within next three weeks and if any
amount of interest is found to be due and
payable, the same shall be paid by the
respondent no.3 to the petitioners within
next three weeks.

17. Writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2021)06ILR A346
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ NAQVI, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 12462 of 2020

M/s Rajhans Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Amarendra Nath Singh, Sri Uma Nath
Pandey, Sri Anil Kumar Chobey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anjali Upadhya, Sri Ramendra Pratap
Singh, Alok Singh

U.P. Industrial Area Development Act,
1976 - "Zero Period" - authority framed
policy dated 1.1.2016 for granting benefit
of "Zero Period" - it provides that in the
event an allottee is unable to take actual
physical possession of the demised area
on account of encroachment or a pending