# Hira Nath Misra and others v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 626
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-07-20
- **Case number:** First Appeal No.699 of 1994
- **Bench:** Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hira-nath-misra-and-others-v-principal-rajendra-medical-college-40973
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Act-Interest
on
compensation- Land acquired for public
purpose- possession taken prior to the
date of publication of notice u/s 4(1)-
whether
the
claimant
entitled
for
interest ?- Held-Yes.

Held: Para 9

In view of the above discussion, the
appeal is allowed in part to the limited
extent. The matter is remanded back to
the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Irrigation
Department,
Azamgarh
to
determine the amount of compensation
towards the rent/damages to which the
appellant may be entitled for the use of
property as claimed prior to the date of
acquisition. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer will determine the dispute if so
raised
after
notice
to
the
State
Government. The appeal with regard to
the rest is dismissed.
Case law discussed:
2002 (1) SCC-142
2004 (4) SCC-79
1991 (1) SCC-262
2005 (12) SCC-443
AIR 1988 Karnataka-49
AIR 1997 SC 2981
AIR 1963 Punjab 411

## Text

626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
political democracy. Of late people have
realized and started sending their girl
children to co-educational institutions
under the care of proper management to
look after the welfare and safety of the
girls. Therefore, greater responsibility is
thrust on the management of the school
and college to protect young children, in
particular, the chastity of girls, bring them
up in discipline and dedicated pursuit of
excellence and to protect them from all
kinds of evils in tile institution as well as
outside. The teachers who are kept incharge bear higher responsibilities and
should be more careful. His character and
conduct should be like Rishi and as loco
parentis. It goes thus without saying
where a teacher fails to maintain such
high standard is not befitted to his status."

6. The Apex Court also considered
the delicacy involved in such matters in
Hira Nath Misra and others Vs.
Principal, Rajendra Medical College,
Ranchi, 1973 (1) SCC 805 and it was
observed that where there are allegations
of misbehaviour with girl students it is a
delicate matter. The police could not be
called in because if an investigation is
started, the female students out of sheer
fright and harm to their reputation will not
co-operate with the police nor an enquiry
before a regular tribunal will be feasible
since the girl students would not have
venture to make their statements in the
presence of miscreants for various reasons
including
fear
of
retaliation
and
harassment and also loss of reputation
amongst fellow students and others.
Authorities, therefore, in their wisdom,
have devised a principle which is a
reasonable principle in the form of Para
81 (b) and this is a condition of service
which has been accepted by the petitioner
while entering the service. It is not
disputed that before passing the order of
termination a summary enquiry was
conducted by the Education Officer and
the Principal of the School jointly where
in the version of the petitioner was also
recorded and thereafter he was found
prima facie guilty of moral turpitude
including immoral sexual behaviour. The
charge is very serious, that too against a
person who is supposed to maintain an
exemplary character, a role model for his
pupils. Thus, in our view such a person
cannot be allowed to continue as a teacher
of the institution.

7. We, therefore, do not find any
error in the order of the Tribunal in
rejecting petitioner's application. Even
otherwise it is not a fit case where this
Court,
in
exercise
of
extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, would like to
interfere.

8. In the result the writ petition fails
and is dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

First Appeal No.699 of 1994

Ram Nath and others

...Appellants
Versus.
The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Irrigation,
District Azamgarh.and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri. J.A. Azmi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
2 All] Ram Nath and others V. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and others
627
Land
Acquisition
Act-Interest
on
compensation- Land acquired for public
purpose- possession taken prior to the
date of publication of notice u/s 4(1)-
whether
the
claimant
entitled
for
interest ?- Held-Yes.

Held: Para 9

In view of the above discussion, the
appeal is allowed in part to the limited
extent. The matter is remanded back to
the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Irrigation
Department,
Azamgarh
to
determine the amount of compensation
towards the rent/damages to which the
appellant may be entitled for the use of
property as claimed prior to the date of
acquisition. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer will determine the dispute if so
raised
after
notice
to
the
State
Government. The appeal with regard to
the rest is dismissed.
Case law discussed:
2002 (1) SCC-142
2004 (4) SCC-79
1991 (1) SCC-262
2005 (12) SCC-443
AIR 1988 Karnataka-49
AIR 1997 SC 2981
AIR 1963 Punjab 411

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.)

1. The only point mooted in the
present appeal is whether a land owner is
entitled to get interest from the date of
possession of the land acquired by the
State Government where possession was
taken by the State Government even
before the issuance of notifications under
sections 4 and 6 of the land Acquisition
Act.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:-

Chak No.433 area 260 links situate
in Village Katghar Lalganj, Tappa Haveli,
Pergana Deogaon, Tahsil Lalganj, District
Azamgarh was acquired by the State
Government for construction of Tikargarh
Minor Canal Division 23. The notification
under section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act
is
dated
15.9.1984
and
the
notification under section 6(1) is dated
29th of September, 1986. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer by his award
dated 23rd of September,1986 determined
the prevailing market value of the land
acquired on the relevant date i.e. the date
of publication of notification under
section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The appellants herein were not satisfied
with the award of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer and the matter was
referred to the Civil Court for determining
the market value. The 5th Additional
District Judge, Azamgarh in L.A.R. No.12
of 1988 found that the claimant appellants
are entitled for compensation at the rate of
Rs.50,000/-, per acre, solatium at the rate
of 30 percent and the interest at the rate of
9 per cent by the award dated 16.5.1989.
A review application No.29 of 1989 was
filed by the claimant appellants for
reviewing the aforesaid order on the
ground that they are also entitled to 12 per
cent additional compensation on the
amount of compensation and the interest
at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and
thereafter 15 per cent per annum on the
amount of compensation or apart thereof
which has not been paid or deposited in
accordance with the section 28 of the land
Acquisition
Act.
The
said
review
application has been allowed by the order
under appeal on the ground that the
claimant appellants are entitled to 12 per
cent additional compensation and interest
at the rate they claimed from the date of
notification under section 4(1) of the Act
Still being not satisfied the above appeal
is at the instance of the claimant
appellants.
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007

3. Shri J.A. Kazami, learned counsel
for the claimant-appellants in support of
the appeal submits only one point. The
argument is that the possession of the land
in question was taken by the State
Government in the year 1977 i.e. before
the commencement of the acquisition
proceedings under the Land Acquisition
Act and therefore the interest on the
compensation amount should be granted
to him from the date of taking actual
possession i.e. the year 1977. The learned
standing counsel on the other hand
contends that claimant appellants are
entitled to get interest as per provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act. On a true and
proper
construction
of
the
Various
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
the claimant appellant cannot get interest
amount from the date of taking possession
if the possession was taken prior to the
initiation of land acquisition proceedings.

4.

Considered
the
respective
submission of the learned counsel for the
parties. The point involved in the above
appeal is no longer res integra and has
been set at rest by various judgements of
the Apex court, referred by the learned
standing counsel.

5. In Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and
another Vs. Special Land Acquisition
officer and another (2002) 1 SCC 142 it
has been held that the land owner is
entitled to additional compensation from
the date of notification up to the date of
award even if possession of the land was
taken prior to the issuance of the
notification under section 4 of the Act.
Interpreting section 23 (l-A) it was held
that starting point for the purposes of
calculating the amount to be awarded
thereunder, at the rate of 12 per cent per
annum on the market value, is the date of
publication of notification under section 4
of the Act. The terminal point for the
purpose is either date of award or the date
of taking possession, whichever is earlier.
In that case possession of the land was
taken prior to the publication of section 4
notification. It was held that, that terminal
was not available and the only terminal
that was available was the date of award.

6. In R.L Jain Vs. DDA and others
(2004) 4 SCC 79 the question involved in
the present appeal directly came up for
consideration therein. The possession was
taken before notification issued under
section 4 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Apex Court after considering the
scheme of the Land Acquisition Act held
that taking possession before notification
without authority cannot be recognised
for the purposes of the Land Acquisition
Act. It was held that there are only two
sections in the Act which specifically
deals with the subject of taking possession
of the acquired land. It distinguished its
earlier judgement delivered in Shri Vijay
Cotton and Oil Mills v. State of Gujrat
(1991) 1 SCC 262 and held as follows:-

"In
case
the
land
owner
is
dispossessed prior to the issuance of
preliminary notification under section
4(1) of the Act the Government merely
takes possession of land but the title
thereof continues to vest with the land
owner. It is fully open for the land owner
to recover the possession of his land by
taking appropriate legal proceedings. He
is therefore only entitled to get rent or
damages for use and occupation for the
period the government retains possession
of the property. Where possession is taken
prior to the issuance of the preliminary
notification, in our opinion, it will be just
and equitable that the Collector may also
2 All] Ram Nath and others V. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and others
629
determine the rent or damages for use of
the properly to which the land owner is
entitled
while
determining
the
compensation amount payable to the land
owner for the acquisition of the property.
The provision of Section 48 of the Act
lend support to such a course of action.
For delayed payment of such amount
appropriate interest at prevailing bank
rate may be awarded."

7. The Apex Court in no uncertain
terms has laid down that where possession
is
taken
prior
to
the
acquisition
proceedings a party may have right to
claim compensation or interest for the
period prior to notification under section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, but such
a claim would not be either under section
34 or section 28 of the Land Acquisition
Act. The interest under these sections can
only start running from the date the
compensation is payable. In view of the
law as settled by the Apex Court as
indicated above, there is no substance in
the argument of the learned counsel for
the appellants.

8. However, it has been further held
in those decisions that the land holder will
be entitled to get compensation/damages
for the period commencing from the date
of taking possession to the date of a
notification under section 4(l) of the Act
and the Apex Court remanded the matter
to
the
District
Magistrate
for
determination in the case of Land
Acquisition Officer and another Vs.
Hemanagouda and others (2005) 12
SCC 443. In para 8 of the report it has
been held as follows:-

"In view of the fact that there was an
apparent conflict of judicial decisions on
the issue of the interpretation of Section
34 till it was resolved in R.L Jain case, we
do not think it appropriate to deprive the
respondents of their rights, if any, to
receive rent or damages from use of the
property prior to the date of acquisition.
The issue whether the market rate granted
under
the
award
pursuant
to
the
acquisition proceedings would amount to
such compensation is not determined by
us at this stage. Accordingly, we dispose
of the appeals by setting aside the
decision of the High Court on the ground
that no interest on the awarded amount
was payable under Section 34 in respect
of
possession
taken
prior
to
the
notification under Section 4(1). However,
we remand the matter back to the relevant
Land Acquisition Authority in Karnataka
(Haveri Division) before whom the
respondents will be at liberty to raise a
claim for rent or damages for any use of
property as claimed prior to the date of
acquisition. The Collector will determine
the dispute if so raised after notice to the
State Government."

The learned counsel for the appellant
has placed reliance on the following
cases:

1. AIR 1988 Karnataka 49 Smt.
Channarajamanni Vs. Union of
India and others.
2. AIR 1997 SC 2981 D-Block Ashok
Nagar (Sahibabad) Plot Holders
Association Vs.State of U.P. and
others.
3. AIR
1963
Punjab
411
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs.
Dr. Sham Lal Narula.

These cases need no discussion as
they are besides point.
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007

9. In view of the above discussion,
the appeal is allowed in part to the limited
extent. The matter is remanded back to
the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Irrigation
Department,
Azamgarh
to
determine the amount of compensation
towards the rent/damages to which the
appellant may be entitled for the use of
property as claimed prior to the date of
acquisition. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer will determine the dispute if so
raised
after
notice
to
thc
State
Government. The appeal with regard to
the rest is dismissed.

10. In the result appeal is allowed in
part, as indicated above. No order as to
costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.N.MISRA, J.

Crl. Misc. Application No. 15729 of 2007.

Tribhuvan Nath and others ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri. Rajendra Kumar

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure -Section 156
(3) - Application for direction to S.O.
concern
for
Registration
of
case-
Magistrate treated the application as
complaint by recording statements under
section 200 and 202- Held - proper- call
for no interference.

Held: Para 4

In view of above legal positions, I am of
the view that learned Magistrate has
exercised the correct option by treating
the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
as
complaint.
The
learned
Magistrate recorded the statement of the
complainant and made suitable inquiry
under section 202 Cr.P.C. and found a
prima facie case against the applicant
and
summoned
them
for
trail.
No
illegality in order appears.
Case law discussed:
2007(1) JIC 244
ALJ 2007 221, 2007 (1) JIC 44
2001 (3) Crimes 384
JT 2001 (2) SC. 81, 2001 (43) ACC- 50
1995 (2) JIC 1523
2007 (5) ADJ 560

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.N. Misra, J.)

1. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant
for quashing the order dated 16.4.2007
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ghazipur in criminal case no. 493 of
2006, by which the applicants have been
summoned for trial for the offence
punishable under Sections 406, 498A,
504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition
Act, police station Kotwali, district
Ghazipur.

2. I have heard Shri Rajendra
Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants
and learned AGA for the State and
perused the file.

3. The main point argued in this case
by the learned counsel for the applicants
is
that
the
magistrate
treated
the
application under Section 156 (3) as
complaint and proceeded under Section
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and according to him
that procedure was illegal because the
said application cannot be treated as
complaint. He has cited the case of