# Jag Pal Singh Bhatt v. State of U.P. through D.M. and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5016 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jag-pal-singh-bhatt-v-state-of-u-p-through-d-m-and-another-39775
- **Pages:** 2

## 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

1All] Jag Pal Singh Bhatt V. State of U.P. through D.M. and another
253
the ground of delay this court need not to
go into the merits of the petitioner's claim
and his entitlements as it will be
premature. In the light of aforesaid
discussions the order of the respondent
No. 4 gives a firm impression to the court
that the explanation as has been given by
the petitioner vide para 8 of the Affidavit
(Annexure-8 to the writ petition supported
by documents Annexure A to F) have not
been taken into consideration and it
appears that in ignorance thereof just by a
casual observation " that he has raised the
issue after a lapse of nearly 13 years
without furnishing any justifiable reason
for the delay" the reference have been
refused. On the facts and circumstances
and in view of aforesaid, I am of the view
that
the
matter
requires
fresh
consideration by the respondent No. 4 in
respect to the claim of the petitioner
without
being
influenced
by
the
observations as made in this judgment.

14. For the reasons stated above, this
writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
Impugned order of the respondent No. 4
dated 22.8.1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ
petition) is hereby quashed. The matter is
remanded for a fresh consideration in
accordance with law.

Parties will bear their own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD FEBRUARY 1, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5016 of 2002

Jag Pal Singh Bhatt

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through District Magistrate
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.K. Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Official
accommodations-must
be
vacated
forthwith after transfer or retirementthe petitioner can not continue to occupy
the official accommodation after his
transfer.

Held - Para 4

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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner is Assistant
Manager in District Industries Center and
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