# Kr. Om Autar v. District Commandant Home Guard and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 580
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-07-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21197 of 1987
- **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kr-om-autar-v-district-commandant-home-guard-and-others-39858
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972- Section 21 (8) -
Enhancement of monthly rent- appellate
authority at the time of determining the
valuation of property committed great
mathematical error fixing rate of Rs.20/-
per sq. feet and Rs.60 per sq. yard while
sq. feet converted sq. yard it would come
Rs.180/- direction issued to reconsider
this aspect only.

Held- Para 17

The matter is sent back to the Appellate
Authority
to
decide
afresh
the
application for correction dated 13.7.87
regarding arithmetical mistake in the
judgement and order dated 19.5.1987
regarding determination of the value of
construction
as
Rs.40,500/-
and
determination of the total value of the
property as Rs.3,01,950/- and rectify the
said figures in the judgement and order
dated 19.5.87 in the light of calculations
made above. The Appellate Authority will
accordingly
make
consequential
rectification
in
the
monthly
rent
determined in the judgement and order
dated 19.5.87. It is made clear that the
parties will not be permitted to raise any
other
point
before
the
Appellate
Authority.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
580
4. No amount of persuasion will
pursuade stone hearted people to give up
this horrible and barbaric practice, and
only harsh and deterrent measures can
achieve this. Now the time has come
when there should be a large number of
death sentences in such cases and that
alone can create the deterrence for this.

5. We are surprised that while an
ordinary murder can be punished by a
death sentence under section 302 I.P.C., a
dowry death, which is a much worse
offence, has a maximum punishment of
life imprisonment. An ordinary murder is
committed in a fit of rage or for a
property, but a dowry death is not just an
ordinary crime, it is a social crime. It
outrages the modern conscience, it makes
the whole society revert to feudal
barbarism. Hence we recommend to
Parliament to amend the law and provide
for death sentence in dowry death cases.

6. When a woman is given respect
by her husband and in-laws the child of
such a woman when he grows up will
become a fighter against injustice as from
childhood he sees that his mother was
given respect by his father who was
physically the strong person. Hence he
sees justice done in his own home. But
when a woman is oppressed her child sees
injustice, and hence when he grows up he
will become a coward or a bully because
he will think that injustice is the normal
way of life. When a large number of
women are treated like this the whole of
society becomes mentally sick. This is
why this barbaric practice must be
ruthlessly stamped out, by imposing harsh
punishment.

7. Very often in such cases even a
post-mortem is not done as in the present
case. This is evidently to destroy all
evidence in the case. The time has now
come when this court will not tolerate
these practices any more and will adopt
very tough measures. In the present case
the impugned FIR dated 6.4.2002 states
that the first informant's sister Sia Dulari
aged about 23 years was married to one
Chandra Shekhar on 16.5.99. She was
harassed for dowry and ultimately killed
on 6.4.2002 and her body was burnt.

8. This is not a fit case for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The petition is therefore
dismissed.

9. However, the bail application of
the petitioners will be decided by the
court concerned expeditiously. It is made
clear that any observations made in this
judgement will not influence the trial
court.

10. Let a copy of this order be sent
by the Registrar General of this Court to
the Union Law Secretary, New Delhi and
the Chairman, Law Commission of India,
New Delhi, and the Law Secretary, U.P.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21197 of 1987

Kr. Om Autar

...Petitioner
Versus
District Commandant Home Guard and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Krishan Mohan Agarwal
Sri Rajendra Kumar
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Kr. Om Autar V. District Commandant Home Guard and others
581
Sri Murlidhar
Sri R.P. Singh
Sri P.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972- Section 21 (8) -
Enhancement of monthly rent- appellate
authority at the time of determining the
valuation of property committed great
mathematical error fixing rate of Rs.20/-
per sq. feet and Rs.60 per sq. yard while
sq. feet converted sq. yard it would come
Rs.180/- direction issued to reconsider
this aspect only.

Held- Para 17

The matter is sent back to the Appellate
Authority
to
decide
afresh
the
application for correction dated 13.7.87
regarding arithmetical mistake in the
judgement and order dated 19.5.1987
regarding determination of the value of
construction
as
Rs.40,500/-
and
determination of the total value of the
property as Rs.3,01,950/- and rectify the
said figures in the judgement and order
dated 19.5.87 in the light of calculations
made above. The Appellate Authority will
accordingly
make
consequential
rectification
in
the
monthly
rent
determined in the judgement and order
dated 19.5.87. It is made clear that the
parties will not be permitted to raise any
other
point
before
the
Appellate
Authority.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner, inter-alia, challenging
the order dated 27.2.1985 passed by the
respondent no. 3 (Annexure no. 3 to the
writ petition), judgment and order dated
19.5.1987 passed by the respondent no. 4
(Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) and
the order dated 18.9.1987 passed by the
respondent no. 4 (Annexure no. 7 to the
writ petition).

2. It appears from the writ petition
that the petitioner is the land lord of
Bungalow no. 234-A, Katra Chand Khan,
Shahjahanpur Road, Bareilly of which the
respondent no. 1 is a tenant, the rate of
rent originally was Rs. 181.25 p. The
petitioner moved an application under
section 21 (8) of the UP Act XIII of 1972
for enhancement of rent in respect of the
said premises to Rs. 5,333.33 per month.

3. Initially, the said application
under section 21 (8) of the U.P. Act XIII
of 1972 was rejected by the Rent Control
and eviction Officer, Bareilly by the order
dated 22.10.1982..

4. The petitioner filed an appeal
against the said order 22.10.1982. The
Appellate Authority by its order dated
25.8.1983 allowed the appeal, set aside
the order dated 22.10.1982 and remanded
the matter to the Rent Control and
Eviction Officer, Bareilly for deciding the
same again.

5. After remand, the respondent no.
3 by its order dated 27.2.1985 partly
allowed the application under section 21
(8) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and enhanced
the monthly rent of the said premises in
question to Rs.700/-.

6. Against the said order dated
27.2.1985, the petitioner filed an appeal
being Misc. Appeal No. 60 of 1985. The
Appellate Authority (Respondent no. 4)
by its judgment and order dated 19.5.1987
partly allowed the appeal and modified
the order dated 27.2.1985 passed by the
respondent no. 3 and fixed the monthly
rent of the premises in question at
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
582
Rs.2,516/-. Thus, the rent of the premises
in question was enhanced from 181.25 p.
to Rs.2,516/-.

7. Thereafter, it appears that an
application dated 13.7.1987 was filed on
behalf of the petitioner before the
Appellate Authority (Respondent no. 4)
under section 152 of Code of Civil.
Procedure
seeking
correction
of
clerical/arithmetical mistake in the said
judgement and order dated 19.5.1987.
Besides, other mistakes mentioned in the
said application dated 13.7.1987, it was
inter-alia,
stated
that
the
figure
Rs.40,500/- mentioned as the cost of
construction in the said premises was not
correct, and the correct figure was
Rs.1,39,560/-. It was, inter alia, also
stated in the said application dated
13.7.1987 that the figure of Rs.3,61,450/-
mentioned as the value of the land in the
premises in question was not correct, and
the correct figure was Rs.2,61,478/-.

8.

The
Appellate
Authority
(Respondent no. 4) by its order dated
18.9.1987 considered the said application
dated 13.7.1987, and rectified only one
mistake, namely, that in place of figure
Rs. 3,61,450/-, the correct figure was Rs.
2,61,450/-.

9. The petitioner has filed this writ
petition challenging the said order dated
27.2.1985, the judgement and order dated
19.5.1987 and the order dated 18.9.1987.

Counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the respondent no. 1. The
petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit.

10. I have heard Sri Murlidhar,
learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri
R.P. Singh and Sri P.K. Singh, Advocates
for the petitioner and learned standing
counsel for the respondent.

11. Sri Murlidhar, learned Senior
counsel made only one submission. He
submitted
that
while
the
Appellate
Authority was correct in passing the order
dated 18.9.1987, rectifying the figure
Rs.3,61,450/- and substituting the same
by the figure Rs.2,61,450/-, the Appellate
Authority acted illegally in not correcting
an arithmetical mistake regarding the
valuation of the construction determined
as Rs.40,500/-.

12. Sri Murlidhar submitted that the
following observation made by the
Appellate Authority in its judgement and
order dated 19.5.1987 was erroneous on
the face of it. t." the year of construction
is 1935 and considering the depreciation,
I am satisfied that the rate of construction
for main building, out houses and
boundary wall can be fixed at the flat rate
of Rs.20/- per sq. feet i.e. Rs.60/- per sq.
yard inclusive of electric and water
fittings. The cost of construction for
determining the market value of the
property comes to Rs.40,500/-.....

13. It is submitted by Sri Murlidhar
that the Appellate Authority committed an
arithmetical mistake in converting Rs.20/-
per sq. feet as Rs.60/-per sq. yard.
According to the learned senior counsel, 9
sq. feet is = one sq. yard. Accordingly
Rs.20/- per sq. feet when converted into
Sq. yard would be Rs.180/- per sq. yard.
Therefore,
valuation
of
construction
should have been done on the basis of the
flat rate being Rs.180/-per sq. yard, and
not Rs. 60/- per sq. yard.

14. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties, I am of the opinion that the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Kr. Om Autar V. District Commandant Home Guard and others
583
contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner is correct. While the Appellate
Authority was correct in passing the order
dated
18.9.1987
and
rectifying
the
arithmetical
mistake
in
the
figure
Rs.3,61,450/- and substituting the same
by the figure Rs.2,61,450/-, the Appellate
Authority acted illegally in ignoring the
arithmetical
mistake
committed
in
computing the value of construction as
Rs.40,500/-. The Appellate Authority in
its judgement and order dated 19.5.1987
adopted a flat rate of Rs.20/- per sq. feet
for determining the value of construction
in the premises in question Rs.20/- per sq.
feet when converted into square yard
would come to Rs.180/- per sq.yard. The
area of total constructed portion was
determined by the Appellate Authority as
675 sq. yard.

15.

Therefore,
the
value
of
construction would be equal to (675/- x
180) i.e. Rs. 1,21,500/-. Thus, there was
arithmetical mistake apparent on the
record in the said judgement and order
dated 19.5.1987 in determining the value
of
construction
as
Rs.40,500/-.
Consequently the total value of the
property would not be Rs.3,01,950/- as
determined in the judgement and order
dated
19.5.1987,
but
would
be
Rs.3,82,950/-.

16. In the circumstances, the
Appellate Authority while considering the
application for correction dated 13.7.1987
ought to have considered the said
arithmetical
mistake
in
the
figure
Rs.40,500/-. The Appellate Authority
acted illegally in not considering the said
arithmetical
mistake
in
the
figure
Rs.40,500/- while passing the order dated
18.9.1987.

17. In the circumstances, the writ
petition is partly allowed. The order dated
18.9.1987 is quashed only to the extent it
has not considered the arithmetical
mistake in the value of construction at
figure Rs.40,500/- and has held that the
total value of the property has rightly
been calculated at Rs.3,01,950/-. The
matter is sent back to the Appellate
Authority to decide afresh the application
for correct dated 13.7.1987 regarding
arithmetical mistake in the judgment and
order
dated
19.5.1987
regarding
determination of the value of construction
as Rs.40,500/- and determination of the
total
value
of
the
property
as
Rs.3,01,950/- and rectify the said figures
in the judgement and order dated
19.5.1987 in the light of calculations
made above. The Appellate Authority will
accordingly
make
consequential
rectification the monthly rent determined
in
the
judgment
and
order
dated
19.5.1987. It is made clear that the parties
will not be permitted to raise any other
point before the Appellate Authority.

18. Since the matter is an old one.
The Appellate Authority shall endeavdor
to
decide
the
same
expeditiously,
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.

19. On the facts and circumstances
of the case, there will be not order as to
costs.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
584
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JAGDISH BHALLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25442 of 2002

Smt. Sahina Parveen

...Petitioner
Versus
Director of Education (Madhyamik) and
others

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Jain
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Raj Kumar Jain
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Yogesh Agarwal
S.C.

Constition
of
India-Article
226-
Cancellation of transfer order can be
interfered only on two counts; firstly,
violation of law, secondly allegation of
malafide. There is no foundation in the
writ petition with regard to violation of
law except the ground of cadre, which
has already been decided-as far as
allegations of malafides are concerned,
vague, allegations have been raised,
which too the Petitioner counsel failed to
substantiate. (Held in para 8).

In light of above, no interference is
warranted under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla, J.)

1. A preliminary objection has been
raised by Senior Advocate, Sri Ashok
Khare regarding maintainability of this
petition on the ground that the petitioner
is not the affected party, therefore, the
Petitioner cannot challenge the order
passed by her superiors.

2. My Attention was brought to the
fact that the petitioner aggrieved by an
order dated 18.01.2002 whereby the
transfer order of the opposite party nos. 3
and 4 were cancelled, has filed writ
petition No. 4799/2002. The said writ
petition was finally disposed of with a
direction to the petitioner to approach the
Director of Education, who shall decide
the representation within a period of three
months. The director, in compliance of
the directions of this Court, considered
the matter and rejected the representation
by an order dated 23.05.2002 upholding
the cancellation of the transfer order.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
has approached this Court.

3. From the perusal of the impugned
order, it is evident that the documents
furnished by the petitioner were also
taken into consideration while deciding
the matter. In fact the representation of
the petitioner has been decided by the
Director of Education in compliance of
the directions issued in writ petition No.
4799/2002
filed
by
the
petitioner
challenging the cancellation of transfer
order, therefore, it can be said that the
petitioner is aggrieved party because it is
his representation which has been decided
by impugned order dated 23.05.2002.
Accordingly, this petition filed by the
petitioner is maintainable.

4. Now, I proceed to decide the
matter on its merit. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the opposite
party Nos. 3 & 4 belong to male cadre of
teacher whereas, they were posted and
working in the Mahila Institution and the
Director of Education wrongly came to