# Kunwar Pal @ Kumar Pal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1664
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-10
- **Case number:** Writ-C No.20901 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kunwar-pal-kumar-pal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49233
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law- The Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 28A(1)- The proviso to Section
28A(1) aforesaid mandates exclusion from
the period of three months limitation, for
the purpose of making an application to
the Collector, the day on which the
Reference Court makes the award and the
time spent in obtaining a certified copy
thereof- The petitioner is entitled to the
exclusion of 36 days spent in obtaining a
certified copy of the award on the basis of
which he had moved the Special Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 28A of
the Act-The order of the Special Land
Acquisition
Officer,
holding
the
proceedings under Section 28A of the Act
to be barred by time, is manifestly illegal.
(Para 5)

Writ petition allowed. (E-15)

## Text

1664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.

14. Consequences to follow.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1664
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-C No.20901 of 2022

Kunwar Pal @ Kumar Pal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajeev Singh (S.C.), Ms. Archi Agarwal

Civil Law- The Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 28A(1)- The proviso to Section
28A(1) aforesaid mandates exclusion from
the period of three months limitation, for
the purpose of making an application to
the Collector, the day on which the
Reference Court makes the award and the
time spent in obtaining a certified copy
thereof- The petitioner is entitled to the
exclusion of 36 days spent in obtaining a
certified copy of the award on the basis of
which he had moved the Special Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 28A of
the Act-The order of the Special Land
Acquisition
Officer,
holding
the
proceedings under Section 28A of the Act
to be barred by time, is manifestly illegal.
(Para 5)

Writ petition allowed. (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

 1. This writ petition is directed
against an order of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer (Sanyukt Sangathan),
Aligarh dated 30.04.2022 rejecting the
petitioner?s application under Section 28A
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, ?the Act?) as time barred.

2. Heard Mr. K.S. Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajeev
Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing
on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and
Ms. Archi Agarwal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3.

3. The petitioner, Kunwar Pal made an
application to the Collector-cum-Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Aligarh
dated
29.01.2001 saying that his land comprising
Khasra No. 7/0-2-0, Khasra No. 10/0-4-0,
Khasra No. 27(m)/0-10-0 and Khasra No.
414 (m)/1-14-0 admeasuring a total of 2
Bigha 2 Biswa situate at village Talaspur
Kalan, Post Quarsi, Pagrana & Tehsil Koil,
District Aligarh was acquired by the State
for the purpose of Planned Industrial
Development by the Uttar Pradesh State
Industrial
Department
Corporation,
Kanpur. It was the petitioner?s case that in
LAR No. 70 of 1993, Mahendra Singh and
others vs. State of U.P. and others, the XIth
Additional District Judge, Aligarh while
deciding the reference under Section 18 of
the Act relating to the same notification
4(1) through which the petitioner?s lands
were acquired vide his judgment and award
dated
25.10.2000
enhanced
the
compensation to Rs. 50 per square yard
together with a proportionate increase in
the other statutory entitlements. The
petitioner claims that he was entitled to
redetermination
of
the
compensation
payable to him as originally awarded, in
5 All. Kunwar Pal @ Kumar Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1665
accordance with the award made by the
Court as aforesaid.

4. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer noticed that the petitioner had made
his application under Section 28A of the
Act on the basis of the judgment and award
of
the
Court
dated
25.10.2000,
on
29.01.2001. The Land Acquisition Officer
held that upon an examination of the
certified copy of the Court?s award, on the
foot of which the application under Section
28A(1) of the Act was moved, it is evident
that the application has been made beyond
the period of three months from the date of
the award, contrary to what is envisaged
under Section 28A of the Act. In the
opinion of the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, the application under Section 28A
of the Act, was time barred. It is on the
aforesaid reasoning that the impugned
order has been passed rejecting the
application under Section 28A as barred by
time.

5. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the
appellant
has
taken
us
through
the
application
under
Section
28A,
in
particular, the averments in paragraph no. 6
thereof and also through a photostat of the
certified copy of the judgment and award
passed by the XIth Additional District
Judge, Aligarh in LAR No. 70 of 1993 that
was
filed
before
the
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer in support of the
application under Section 28A of the Act.
From a perusal of the folio, that is part of
photostat of the certified copy at page no.
21 of the paper book, we find that an
application for the certified copy of the
Reference Court's order was made on
20.12.2000,
and,
it
was
ready
on
25.01.2001. Delivery of the copy was taken
on 25.01.2001. In the circumstances, the
time spent in preparation of the certified
copy of the Reference Court's award, that is
the basis of the invocation of jurisdiction
under Section 28A of the Act, has to be
excluded from the period of limitation. This
is precisely what is stated in paragraph no.
6 of the application under Section 28A of
the Act. The proviso to Section 28A(1)
aforesaid mandates exclusion from the
period of three months limitation, for the
purpose of making an application to the
Collector, the day on which the Reference
Court makes the award and the time spent
in obtaining a certified copy thereof. The
time spent in obtaining the certified copy of
the Reference Court's award between
20.12.2000 and 25.01.2001 is 36 days
which have to be added to the available
period of limitation of three months,
reckoned from the date of award passed by
the Court. If those 36 days are added, the
application dated 27.01.2001, based on the
award dated 25.10.2000, would be well
within
the
period
of
three
months
prescribed under Section 28A(1) of the Act.
Clearly, the petitioner is entitled to the
exclusion of 36 days spent in obtaining a
certified copy of the award on the basis of
which he had moved the Special Land
Acquisition Officer under Section 28A of
the Act. Thus, the order of the Special Land
Acquisition
Officer,
holding
the
proceedings under Section 28A of the Act
to be barred by time, is manifestly illegal.

6. There is an added remark in the
impugned order that Gata No. 414 has not
at all been acquired. That is a matter of
evidence. The impugned order has thrown
out the application under Section 28A of
the Act at the threshold, without affording
the petitioner any opportunity to produce
evidence. Once the proceedings under
Section 28A of the Act are restored to file
of the Special Land Acquisition Officer
under our orders made hereby, the Special
1666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Land Acquisition Officer will afford
opportunity to the petitioner to produce
evidence in support of his case. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer may thereupon
decide the issue.

7 In the circumstances, this petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer (Sanyukt
Sangathan), Aligarh, Annexure 4 to the
writ petition, is hereby quashed. The
application under Section 28A of the Act is
restored to file of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer (Sanyukt Sangathan),
Aligarh to be heard and determined in
accordance with law after affording the
parties due opportunity.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1666
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 4747 of 2019
(CIVIL)

Smt. Jeera Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
A.D.J. Court No. 12 Varanasi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Brij Raj, Sri Atul Dayal (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shambhu Nath, Sri Pratik J. Nagar, Sri
Triveni Shanker, Sri Awadhesh Kumar

Civil
Law-
Civil
Law-Code
of
Civil
Procedure,1908-Order 23 Rule 1, Order 1
Rule
10-
Whether
the
fact
notwithstanding that a colluding plaintiff
and a defendant may have contrived to
defeat a third party's rights and the
plaintiff,
to
effectuate
that
purpose,
makes an application to unconditionally
withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule
1 of the Code, can the third party in
jeopardy be permitted to be substituted
for the withdrawing plaintiff and granted
leave to prosecute the suit; or in any
event, impleaded as a plaintiff under
Order I Rule 10 of the Code and permitted
to pursue the suit?- the Registry is
directed to place the matter urgently
before His Lordship the Hon'ble The Chief
Justice for constitution of a larger Bench.
(Para 10 & 31) (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Meera Rai Vs Additional Sessions Judge &
ors.2017 (12) ADJ 817

2. Smt. Raisa Sultana Begam & ors.Vs Abdul
Qadir & ors.AIR 1996 Allahabad 318

3. The Sunni Central Board Vs Sri Gopal Singh
Visharad 2010 ADJ 1 (SFB)(LB)

4. M/s. Auto Oil Company & anr. Vs Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. & ors.2011 (5) ADJ 800

5. Bhajan Lal & ors.Vs Smt. Rajmala Daughter
of Kamta Prasad 2013 (2) ALJ 476

6. Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs Prakash Chandra
Mishra & ors.(2011) 2 SCC 705

7. Smt. Kanteshwari Tiwari (Dead) through L.Rs.
Vs Badri Prasad & ors.2013 (98) ALR 76

8.
M.
Siddiq
(dead)
through
legal
representatives
(Ram
Janmabhumi
Temple
case) Vs Mahant Suresh Das & ors.(2020) 1 SCC
1

9. Anurag Mittal Vs Shaily Mishra Mittal (2018) 9
SCC 691

10. Gopal Krishna Indley Vs 5th A.D.J., Kanpur
& ors.AIR 1981 All 300

11. Ganga Saran Vs Civil Judge, Hapur,
Ghaziabad & ors.AIR 1991 All 114