# Kaden Glen Edward Moore v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 415
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2017-08-29
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 63120 of 2014
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kaden-glen-edward-moore-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44306
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law- Right to Fair Compensation and
Transperency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013-
Section 19-Lease was for 50 years-got
determined on 3rd November,1958-not
extended-no
material
placed-neither
Petitioner nor his predecessors could
claim any right of compensation as the
land
stood
vested
in
State
after
determination of lease-W.P. dismissed.
(E-9)

## Text

11 All. Kaden Glen Edward Moore Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
415
the proceeding under Section 13(2) and
13(4) to approach the DRT, but has not
approached before the appropriate forum
and there in no candid disclosure of the
relevant material facts as to the reasons
why they have not availed the alternative
remedy, which clearly speaks in volume
that they are not interested to repay the
loan, which was taken by petitioner No. 1
by way back in the year 2018 and was
trying to linger on repayment on one
ground or the other.

39. The pleadings in the writ petition
are very bald and the allegations of violation
of principle of natural justice is rhetorical, as
such the relief sought by the petitioners is
highly misconceived. The writ petition is not
instituted to show any bonafide from any
remote corner but only to somehow install
further action of the bank-secured creditor. It
cannot be said that the orders passed by the
District Magistrate are without jurisdiction or
non-speaking. There is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned orders passed by
the District Magistrate, which may call for
any interference.

40. In view of what has been indicated
herein above, we find no justification for
invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
writ petition sans any merit is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2020)11ILR A415
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN MEHROTRA, J.

WRIT - C No. 63120 of 2014
Kaden Glen Edward Moore ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri
Vishnu
Gupta,
Sri
B.K.
Singh
Raghuvanshi, Sri Chandan Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law- Right to Fair Compensation and
Transperency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013-
Section 19-Lease was for 50 years-got
determined on 3rd November,1958-not
extended-no
material
placed-neither
Petitioner nor his predecessors could
claim any right of compensation as the
land
stood
vested
in
State
after
determination of lease-W.P. dismissed.
(E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
& Hon'ble Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
praying for a mandamus commanding the
respondents particularly the Collector,
Allahabad to declare an award in terms of
Section 11 read with Section 11(A) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and now in
terms of Section 19 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. The background in which this writ
petition has been filed is that the land in
relation to site no. 34 Civil Station,
Allahabad was proposed to be acquired and
proceedings were undertaken by issuing
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894.
After
acquisition of the land the same was
handed over to the Allahabad Development
Authority
for
development
and
its
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
utilization
for
purposes
including
commercial purpose. It is undisputed that
the said land came to be developed and
then was also negotiated and settled by the
Allahabad Development Authority. The
acquisition was, therefore complete and
possession had also been taken.

3. The acquisition, according to the
stand taken in the counter affidavit came to
be challenged before this Court in Writ
Petition No. 6071 of 1986 by the original
lessee and some other persons claiming
title over the property being Writ Petition
No. 6697 of 1986. Both the writ petitions
were dismissed, whereafter the possession
of the property came to be delivered to the
Allahabad Development Authority on 30th
January, 1997.

4. Other writ petitions with regard to
unauthorized constructions standing thereon
that were filed came to be dismissed on 21st
May, 1997.

5. Writ Petition No. 6697 of 1986 was
filed by the predecessor in interest of the
petitioner namely Mrs. Moira Lilian More,
this writ petition remained pending till 2005.
In between one Maha Lakshmi Trust filed
Writ Petition No. 47912 of 2000 which was a
third round of litigation in relation to the
same property. An objection was taken in the
said writ petition that the land had already
been vested in the State and therefore, there
was no occasion to acquire a land which had
already vested in the State. The issue relating
thereto was taken into consideration and the
writ petition was dismissed on 22nd
December, 2010, copy of the said order has
been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the counter
affidavit dated 24th February, 2015.

6. It is in this background that Writ
Petition No. 6697 of 1986 filed by the
predecessor in interest of the petitioner
referred to hereinabove, came to be
disposed of on 15th December, 2005 by the
following directions.

" Heard the learned counsel for
the appellant Sri Vishnu Gupta and learned
counsel for the respondents Sri Ashok
Mohilay.

The challenge of notification
under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act has been given up by the
petitioner. Now it has been submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
no award u/s 11 and 11A has been passed.
The same may be decided in accordance
with law within a period of two months
from the date of fling of certified copy of
this order.

With the aforesaid direction, the
writ petition is disposed of."

7. Since the said direction was not
complied with, a contempt application was
filed praying for taking action under the
Contempt of Court Act. The contempt
application was rejected on 1st September,
2011 being Contempt Application No.
4196 of 2011, copy of the order has been
filed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

8. The petitioner has come up
complaining that after the dismissal of the
contempt application, since the petitioner
had no remedy, and that no action had been
taken by the respondents in proceeding to
declare the award and pay compensation,
therefore, the necessity arose to file the
present writ petition.

9. The present writ petition was filed
in the year 2014 in which affidavits were
invited and the State has filed its counter
affidavit through Dr. Basant Agrawal
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nagar
11 All. Abhishek Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.
417
Mahapalika, Allahabad. Along with the
said counter affidavit the lease deed of the
property executed on 25th June, 1910 has
been placed on record. The said lease deed
extends the benefit of a lease of 50 years
w.e.f. 4th November, 1908 till 3rd
November, 1958.

10. The terms of the lease do not
indicate any provision for extension of the
lease beyond the period of 50 years with a
power of reentry and a further rider that the
occupant shall not claim any compensation
or payment from the State in respect of any
building erection fixture or any of them
upon the said premises or any part thereof.

11. The stand, therefore, of the
respondents is that once the lease stood
determined with no extension after 1958,
then the petitioner or the predecessors of
the petitioner could not claim any right of
compensation over the land as the land
stood vested in the State free from all
encumbrances. It is for the said reason that
the
procedure
of
compensation
or
declaration of award has not been made in
the present case.

12. Having gone through the records
and having perused the rejoinder affidavit
filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid
counter affidavit, we do not find any
material that may establish a subsisting
right in favour of the petitioner for claiming
compensation or for even declaration of an
award under Section 11 of 1894 Act.
Consequently, in the absence of any right
title or interest surviving in favour of the
petitioner a mandamus as prayed for in the
background aforesaid cannot be issued.

13. Learned counsel has urged that an
application for renewal of the lease had
been filed which is pending consideration.
From the rejoinder affidavit, we find that
the said application for renewal is dated 1st
September, 1969, eleven years after the
expiry of the tenure of lease. There is no
order passed on the said application and
even otherwise no right subsisted to enable
the petitioner so as to claim renewal.

14. The writ petition, therefore being
devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2020)11ILR A417
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

Bail No. 5384 of 2020

Abhishek Srivastava ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal Krishna, Pooja Mishra, Shivam
Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 -Section 167(2) -In these
bail application involved an identical
question of law - on the ground of default on
the part of the prosecution to file the charge
sheet under section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

Once the charge sheet was filed under section
167(2) Cr.P.C. would become inapplicable and
the accused who failed to avail the right would
stand deprived of claiming the benefit of
default. (Para 19)

Investigation is complete with the filing of
charge
sheet,
therefore,
the
limitation
embodied under section 167(2) must be seen