# Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1462
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-10-12
- **Bench:** Dharnidhar Jha, Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kunwar-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-42322
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Habeas
Corpus
Petition-Arrest
of
petitionerdetention in lock up for 14 days-without
following the provisions of rule 246 and
251
of
U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.Act-prior
to
detention
no
information
given-give
undertaking for deposit of loan amount
and refusal by petitioner under Rule 246the action of Tehsildar and collection
Amin issuing warrant of arrest-frivolous
and
unsupportable
by
law-as
the
petitioner already released-but wrongful
3 All] Kunwar Pal Singh V. State of U.P.

1463
confinement violating personal liberty of
petitioner-Rs. 50,000/-awarded towards
compensation-with liberty to recoverable
from erring Tehsildar and collection
Amin.

Held: Para-30

Thus, we find that the actions of the
authorities of the Revenue Department,
like, the Tehsildar or the Collecting Amin
were completely in infraction of some
mandatory Rules and procedures set
down by them and, thus, what we find is
that not only the issuance of warrant of
arrest was frivolous and unsupportable
by law but the arrest and confinement of
Kunwar Pal Singh into custody was also
not supported by the relevant Rules.

## Text

1462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

5. This Court is fully conscious that
the personal liberty is a very precious
fundamental right and it should be
curtailed only when it becomes imperative,
according to the particular facts and
circumstances of the case.

6. The accused applicant is a public
servant, and, as such, there is no likelihood
of the accused fleeing from justice and
tampering
with
the
prosecution
witnesses.Both of them relate to ensure the
fair trial of the case.

7. In State of Kerala v. Raneef
(2011) 1 SCC 784, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:-

"In deciding bail applications an
important factor which should certainly be
taken into consideration by the Court is the
delay in concluding the trial. Often this
takes several years, and if the accused is
denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who
will restore so many years of his life spend
in
custody?
Is
Article
21
of
the
Constitution, which is the most basic of all
the fundamental rights in our constitution,
not violated in such a case? Of course this
is not the only factor, but it is certainly one
of the important factors in deciding
whether to grant bail.In the present case
the respondent has already spend 66 days
in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his
counter-affidavit), and we see no reason
why he should be denied bail.A doctor
incarcerated for a long period may end up
like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel
A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his
profession and even his name in the
Bastille."

8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court as stated above is a corner
stone relating to fundamental right of
liberty vis-a-vis prevention of crime.

9.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances and without expressing any
view on the merit of the case, let the
accused applicant be released on bail in
Case Crime No. 130/2012, Under Section-
307/332/353/354/342/323/504/506/427 IPC
& 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-
Payagpur,
District-
Bahraich
on
his
furnishing a personal bond and two local
and reliable sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the Court/Magistrate
concerned.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 9245 of 2012

Kunwar Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai [A.C.]

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra
A.G.A.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Habeas
Corpus
Petition-Arrest
of
petitionerdetention in lock up for 14 days-without
following the provisions of rule 246 and
251
of
U.P.Z.A.
&
L.R.Act-prior
to
detention
no
information
given-give
undertaking for deposit of loan amount
and refusal by petitioner under Rule 246the action of Tehsildar and collection
Amin issuing warrant of arrest-frivolous
and
unsupportable
by
law-as
the
petitioner already released-but wrongful
3 All] Kunwar Pal Singh V. State of U.P.

1463
confinement violating personal liberty of
petitioner-Rs. 50,000/-awarded towards
compensation-with liberty to recoverable
from erring Tehsildar and collection
Amin.

Held: Para-30

Thus, we find that the actions of the
authorities of the Revenue Department,
like, the Tehsildar or the Collecting Amin
were completely in infraction of some
mandatory Rules and procedures set
down by them and, thus, what we find is
that not only the issuance of warrant of
arrest was frivolous and unsupportable
by law but the arrest and confinement of
Kunwar Pal Singh into custody was also
not supported by the relevant Rules.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dharnidhar Jha, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Pradeep Kumar
Rai, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the
petitioner Kunwar Pal Singh, father of
Pushpendra Singh, who sent a telegram to
the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this Court
at His Lordship's Lucknow address which
runs as under:

" ek- eq[; U;k;k/kh'k] gkbZdksVZ] y[kuÅA

esjs firk dqWojiky flag dks vehu] rglhynkj o
,l-Mh-,e- lnj ftyk cnk;w¡ us fof/k fo:) 5 fnuksa fn-
9@2@12 ls gokykr esa voS/kcanh cuk j[kk gS]
vR;kpkj] mRihM+u tkjh gS] d`i;k lEiw.kZ U;k; o eqfDr
fnyk;saA

g0 iq"isUnz flag pkSgku

iq"isUnz flag

xzke cjk;e; [ksM+k] Fkkuk mft;kuh

ftyk cnk;wW] m-iz- "

2. The cognizance of the telegram,
treating it as an application seeking relief
against an act of encroachment upon the
personal liberty of Kunwar Pal Singh, father
of Pushpendra Singh was taken by the
Court and the matter was directed to be
listed before the appropriate Bench, as
appears from the order passed by the
Hon'ble The Senior Judge, Lucknow Bench
on 13.2.2012. The matter was listed before
a Bench comprised by two Hon'ble Judges
of the Lucknow Bench of the Court and the
Bench finding that the territorial jurisdiction
was lying within the Allahabad Bench of
the Court, directed it to be listed in
Allahabad
and,
accordingly,
the
proceedings of Habeas Corpus Writ Petition
bearing No.9245 of 2012 was drawn up.
Notices were issued. By an order dated
2.4.2012 a Bench of this Court recorded that
the stand of the State of U.P. that Kunwar
Pal Singh had been released from custody
on 22.2.2012 be verified by the learned
C.J.M., Budaun.

3. We had the occasion of hearing the
matter and finding that these appeared
prima facie case of violation of some laws
to justify the arbitrary and illegal detention
of Kunwar Pal Singh directed the learned
AGA to file counter affidavit and,
accordingly, the counter affidavits along
with supplementary counter affidavit was
filed.

4. The counter affidavit filed by the
State of U.P. on 3.7.2012 contains the
statements of facts on the basis of which the
State of U.P. has justified the action of
arresting Kunwar Pal Singh by the revenue
authorities. It has been stated that in fact
Kunwar Pal Singh had obtained a loan of
Rs. 2,75,000/- from the State Bank of India,
Ujhani Branch on 16.10.2003 to purchase a
tractor, but he failed to pay back the loan
and, accordingly, a recovery certificate
under Section 11-A of the U.P. Agricultural
Credit Act, 1973 was issued and on that
basis the Tehsildar, Budaun with the
endorsement of District Magistrate, Budaun
proceeded in accordance with law.
1464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

5. It was stated that as per Rule 236 of
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred
to as ''U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules or the Rules'),
Writ of Citation in Form No.69 was issued
calling upon the said Kunwar Pal Singh to
appear before the Tehsildar, Ujhani on
30.5.2011. It appears that the Citation was
not personally served upon Kunwar Pal
Singh. Servar/Collection Peon, Chandra
Pal, reported that the Citation issued in
Form No.69 had been hung up at a
conspicuous place of the house of Kunwar
Pal Singh and a receipt was obtained in
token thereof from his son Latesh. A report
was submitted by the process serving peon
Chandra Pal on 23.5.2011 that Kunwar Pal
Singh refused to receive the Citation and, as
such, a copy of Form No.69 was affixed at
the house of the petitioner and in token of
affixing of the Citation, signature of Latesh,
s/o Kunwar Pal Singh was obtained.

6. It was stated that the Citation was
duly and satisfactorily served as per Rule
246(1) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules and,
accordingly, a writ of arrest of Kunwar Pal
Singh was issued in Form No.70 on
29.8.2011 due to his non-appearance before
the authorized officer and it was handed
over to the Regional Collection Amin,
namely, Vidya Ram Sharma, who reported
that Kunwar Pal Singh, having come to
know that warrant of arrest had been issued
against him, absconded with his movable
property, the tractor, and as a result thereof,
citation to arrest Kunwar Pal Singh was
returned unexecuted. The second warrant of
arrest was issued in the same Form No.70
on 9.2.2012. Before issuing the second
warrant of arrest the Regional Collection
Amin was reporting about the abscondence
of Kunwar Pal Singh and on that account
the attachment of immovable properties of
Kunwar Pal Singh was ordered by issuing
an order in Form No. 71 on 29.8.2011 by
the S.D.M., Sadar Budaun as per Rule 244
to 271 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules and it was
handed over to the Regional Collection
Amin, namely, Vidya Ram Sharma and a
report was submitted by him that the
petitioner had already fled away along with
the tractor and, as such, Form No.71 could
not be executed. On the basis of the
aforesaid report about the abscondence and
removal of the movable property by
Kunwar Pal Singh, the arrest of the
petitioner was ordered in the same Form
No.70 on 9.2.2012 and in compliance
thereof the petitioner was arrested by the
Collection Amin because he failed to pay
up the loan amount. He was lodged in
Tehsil lock-up on 9.2.2012 and was
released on 28.2.2012 upon completion of
14 days as required by Section 281 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or the Act).

7. It was also averred by the State of
U.P. that the Regional Collection Amin
reported that the petitioner was not ready to
deposit the amount due to be paid by him
and as such his confinement was ordered by
the lawful authorities. On these averments,
the State of U.P. justified the action of
arresting Kunwar Pal Singh and sending
him in to the lock up.

8. While addressing us, Sri Pradeep
Kumar Rai, Amicus Curiae, took us to
Section 279 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and
submitted that it was true that arrears of
land revenue could be recovered by certain
modes of enforcing the recovery as per that
provision of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and it is
also true that the arrest could also be
affected of a person who has an obligation
of paying up any dues towards the arrears of
land revenue, but there are certain
3 All] Kunwar Pal Singh V. State of U.P.

1465
procedures set down by the Rules framed
under the Act for carrying out the
procedures of enforcing the recovery of the
arrears of land revenue as per the provision
of Sections 279 and 280 of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act. In the above context, Sri Rai took
us also to Rules 236, 244, 245, 246 & 251
of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules, 1952 and
submitted that there was a complete
violation of the Rules, especially of Rules
246 and 251 and the whole action of
arresting Kunwar Pal Singh and detaining
him into prison was not only arbitrary but
smacked of executive superiority imposed
upon the personal liberty of a person. It was,
as such, contended that this Court must hold
that Kunwar Pal Singh was deprived of his
personal liberty without following the
procedure established by law and, thus, the
officers of the State of U.P. who were
involved in the whole exercise had
contravened the provision of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and appear to have
illegally and wrongfully confined Kunwar
Pal Singh.

9. Submission also was that the
arbitrary and illegal acts of the employees of
the State of U.P. in violating the
fundamental rights of Kunwar Pal Singh by
arresting and detaining him required that he
be appropriately compensated.

10. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned
AGA, attempted to justify the actions of the
revenue authority by referring to us
different documents which are Annexures
to the supplementary affidavit dated
3.7.2012 which contains the statements in
justification of the acts of the State of U.P.
and its officers.

11. It was submitted before us that in
order to recover the loan amount taken out
by Kunwar Pal Singh as arrears of land
revenue, procedure under Sections 279 and
280 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were to be
followed and the revenue authorities who
are the custodian of those provisions as
regards the process to recover the arrears of
land revenue followed the provisions in
both later and spirit. The citation was issued
by Annexure-1 on 23.5.2011 and it was
addressed to Kunwar Pal Singh but as per
the report appearing at page 8 of the
supplementary affidavit, Kunwar Pal Singh
refused to receive the citation for paying up
the arrears of land revenue and as such copy
of the citation was hung up at a portion of
his house and compliance to that particular
Rule was certified by obtaining the
signature of Latesh s/o Kunwar Pal Singh.
Having not appeared before the authority
neither paying up the dues, gave rise to
issuance of another Citation in Form No.70
on 9.2.2012 and warrant of arrest, firstly, on
29.8.2011 and thereafter on 9.2.2012, as a
result of which Kunwar Pal Singh was
arrested. The Regional Collecting Amin had
reported that Kunwar Pal Singh, after being
arrested and produced before the S.D.M.
was not ready to pay up the amount due to
be paid by him and as such in compliance
of Rule 251 he was sent to Tehsil lock-up.

12.

For
evaluating
the
rival
contentions, we want to point out that in
order to recover the arrears of land revenue,
there
are
powers
vested
in
certain
authorities in the revenue department to
issue coercive processes against a person
who is obliged to pay up the arrears of land
revenue. Rule 235 of the Rules empowers
that processes could be issued against any
person having property in a district who is a
defaulter regarding payment of arrears of
land revenue, after obtaining certificate to
that effect. As per Section 3 of the Revenue
Recovery Act, a writ of citation or of
warrant of arrest along with the warrant of
1466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

attachment of movable property are the
instruments to be issued as coercive
processes for inducing the payment of land
revenue. This appears from Rules 235 and
236 of the Rules. Rule 241 of the Rules
empowers the Tehsildar of the Tehsil to
issue the writ of demand or citation against
a defaulter to appear before him. The same
order could be issued under the order to be
passed either by the Collector of the District
or by the Assistant Collector In-charge of
the Sub-Division. Rule 245 directs that no
writ further than one, could be issued in
respect of the same arrear to any defaulter
except under the express order of the
Collector and in case after issuance of the
writ, the arrears of land revenue are not paid
within 15 days of the issuance of the writ,
more severe measures are promptly to be
taken.

13. As regards the service of the writs
for making payment of the land revenue,
Rule 246 of the Rules is the relevant
provision. It requires that writ or citation
should be served upon the defaulter
personally as far as possible and if in case of
the same being not possible or the service
not being made personally on him, it may
promptly be served upon any of his agents.
Again, if the defaulter or his agent both are
not found, then what the process server has
to do is to hang up a copy of the writ at
some conspicuous part of the house of the
defaulter. In case the defaulter or his agent
is found and the writ is served personally
upon any of them, then the counterfoil had
to be made over to the defaulter or his agent
and the other part of the writ or citation had
to be brought to the headquarter, that's the
tehsil.

14. Rule 246(2) further requires that in
case there is no personal service on the
defaulter then the reason has specifically to
be shown or recorded as to why the service
was not personally made upon the defaulter.
Not only that, the officer who is to receive
the service report has to also to make a note
the particulars of the process being served
or not served personally on the process
itself.

15. We must point out here that there
was no personal service and there was no
report submitted by the Collecting Amin as
to what was the reason for not serving the
writ or citation personally upon the
defaulter therein. He was simply reporting
that the defaulter Kunwar Pal Singh refused
to accept the notice and as such he hung a
copy thereof up at some part of his house.
The curious part of the report is that the
process server in token of the truthfulness of
the report, associated as a witness none else
than the son of Kunwar Pal Singh who, in
our opinion, could have been more
competent an agent of Kunwar Pal Singh to
be served with the copy of the citation. We
do not find any report that any attempt was
made by the Collecting Amin, the process
server, to ask the son of Kunwar Pal Singh,
namely, Latesh, whose name appears in
para 4 of the supplementary affidavit, to
receive the copy of the citation and issue a
receipt
in
that
behalf.
This
single
circumstance about the compliance with
Rule 246 has persuaded us to entertain an
opinion as if it were an attempt made by the
revenue authorities to cover up the acts
which were very serious as may appear
from our subsequent discussions.

16. The case of the revenue
department and its official is that an
attachment order having been issued, a
report was sent by the attaching authority
who was again the same Regional
Collecting Amin, that Kunwar Pal Singh
3 All] Kunwar Pal Singh V. State of U.P.

1467
had removed his movable property, like, the
tractor and himself had gone into hiding.

17. We find a report appearing at page
14 of the supplementary affidavit which
reads that the defaulter had removed his
tractor and had gone absconding. The
tractor was purchased by the defaulter by
taking out a loan from the State Bank of
India. We may hold a view that unless the
man had held a substantial position in
society, he could not have obtained a loan
and there could not have been a purpose of
purchasing a tractor unless he had
substantial landed property and other
movable
properties.
Why
then
the
attachment order was not executed against
him by attaching other movable properties
of his, we could not find any reason about
it. What we find is that the authority who
was issuing the warrant of arrest was not
unintelligent as to write in his order of
attachment that it was not to be executed in
respect of all movable properties of Kunwar
Pal Singh and that his tractor was only to be
attached. As such, we carry an impression
as if these reports were after thoughts which
were brought into existence only after
Kunwar Pal Singh had been arrested to
justify the illegal action.

18. Rule 245 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Rules reads that Citation in Form No.70,
which is in fact an instrument to authorize
the arrest of a defaulter, could not be issued
twice. The authority which was issuing
Form No.70, i.e., the warrant of arrest
against Kunwar Pal Singh, was simply
undermining Rule 245 and was issuing the
second warrant of arrest in Form No. 70 on
9.2.2012 having earlier issued the same on
29.8.2011 in execution of which Kunwar
Pal Singh was arrested.

19. What is the procedure after the
defaulter is arrested? Rule 251 (1) requires
that whenever a Tehsildar causes a defaulter
to be arrested the matter of arrest of such a
defaulter has to be reported without delay to
the Collector for his information and also to
the Assistant Collector In-Charge of the
Sub-Division. We do not have any such
document before us to satisfy us that Rule
251(1) of the Rules was complied by
placing the information before the Collector
or the Assistant Collector In-charge. One
may argue that the compliance could be
oral, but when we consider sub-rule (2) to
Rule 251 there could be no difficulty in
holding that compliance to the Rule could
never be orally shown, specially when it
relates to such a serious matter, like,
arresting a persons.

20. If it has to be a 'report' then the
report has always to be in writing so as to
keeping a record of it that Rule 251(1) was
duly complied with. There is nothing on
record to satisfy us that after his arrest,
Kunwar Pal Singh was brought without
delay before the Tehsildar who could be the
authority to issue Form No. 70 under his
signature and why he was sent to custody.

21. In fact we find that the Rules
preponderantly forbid sending an arrested
defaulter to custody for detention and rather
require that such an action curtailing upon
the personal liberties of the person be
avoided as far as it may be possible. As
such the Rule 251 has set down some duties
upon the officer before whom such an
accused defaulter was to be produced.

22. Rule 251(2) requires that no
defaulter shall be detained in custody unless
there is reason to believe that the process of
his detention in custody would compel in
payment either of the whole or substantial
1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

portion of the amount. In our opinion, if a
defaulter is arrested and produced before the
authority under Rule 251(2) then the
authority has to draw up an order noting
down the whole situation that the defaulter
was not ready to make payment either in
full or in part and that his refusal had
compelled the authority to authorize his
detention in the lock up.

23. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned
AGA, drew our attention towards page 19
of the counter affidavit over which is a
report submitted by the Collecting Amin to
the Tehsildar to the effect that the arrested
Kunwar Pal Singh, the defaulter, was being
produced before the Tehsildar and that he
was not ready to pay any part of the arrears
of land revenue.

24. In our considered opinion, this
was not the compliance of Rule 251(2)
upon which the Tehsildar was authorizing
the detention of Kunwar Pal Singh in the
lock up. If we consider sub-rule (3) of Rule
251 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 we
may find that it is the requirement of that
particular sub-rule that on production of the
arrested defaulter before the officer who had
issued the warrant of arrest, he should give
some further time to such a defaulter to pay
the arrears instead of detaining him and for
that purpose he may release the defaulter on
his undertaking to pay the arrear within a
fixed period. This particular sub-rule, in our
opinion, is not a mere rule of procedure or
technicality. In our considered view, this
rule creates a right in the defaulter, who had
been arrested and who has been produced
before the officer ordering his arrest to be
informed about his right of being released if
he gave an undertaking to pay the arrears
either in part or in full as per Rule 251(2) of
the Rules.

25. In our considered view the officer
before whom the arrested person has to be
produced, in such a situation, has a legal
obligation cast upon him to inform such an
arrested person of his right which is created
by Rule 251 (3) of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules
and the compliance thereof must also be
recorded because it could be held without
assigning any reason that release of such a
defaulter could never be ordered orally, it
has always to be through an order and if that
order was to be drawn then the right of the
arrested person of being informed of being
clothed with a right of availing an
opportunity of paying the dues has also to
be protected by making a record in writing.

26. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned AGA
was asked by us to inform us about the
compliance of Rule 251(3) and he was
candidly conceding that he did not have any
document or record to show that Rule 251
either in part or in full as per its provisions
contained in sub-rules (2) and (3) were
complied with. We find that the State of
U.P. admits that Kunwar Pal Singh was a
defaulter. We also do not have anything to
find adverse to the stand taken by the State
of U.P. and its Revenue Authorities that
citation of writ, for realization of arrears of
Rs. 2,75,000/- as land revenue, was issued
by Annexure 1 at page 6 of the
supplementary affidavit. If some one has
not paid the dues which is required to be
recovered as land revenue under any
particular Act and any particular authority
was empowered to take steps in that behalf ,
we cannot decry those steps, if taken
validly. We also do not find that no writ was
issued and sent for service upon Kunwar
Pal Singh, but a doubt has arisen in our
minds on the correctness of the service
report submitted by one Chandra Pal, the
process server, which is dated 23.5.2011.
The report stated that Kunwar Pal Singh
3 All] Kunwar Pal Singh V. State of U.P.

1469
was not ready to accept the writ and as such,
it was hung up on any particular part of his
house and evidence in that behalf was
certified by obtaining signature of one of
the sons of Kunwar Pal Singh.

27. We have also noted that the son of
Kunwar Pal Singh could have been his good
agent and there was no reason shown to us
as to why no attempt was made to serve
copy of the writ upon Latesh son of Kunwar
Pal Singh. We find that the Revenue
Authorities were simply acting in violation
of the Rules framed under different sections
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

28. We have already pointed out that a
warrant of arrest could be issued once in
Form No.70, the second warrant is
permissible by Rule 251(3) only when after
being released after giving an undertaking
for paying up the dues, the defaulter does
not pay. In that case the revenue authorities
shall be within their rights to issue warrant
of arrest again in Form No.70. It is indicated
by Rule 251(3) that as soon as there was a
report, and in our opinion a fake one about
the removal of the tractor by Kunwar Pal
Singh and himself having gone into hiding,
the authority had issued another warrant,
but without express order which is required
to be obtained from the Collector as per
Rule 245 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Rules. On
being arrested Kunwar Pal Singh does not
appear being given a chance of exercising
his right of giving an undertaking of paying
up the dues in part or in full. There was no
denial from him.

29. It was only a fake report in our
opinion given by the Collecting Amin as
appears from page 19 which is dated
9.2.2012 that Kunwar Pal Singh was sent to
prison. There is no record that Kunwar Pal
Singh was pointed out that he had a right of
giving an undertaking to pay up the dues
within a specific time.

30. We have already noted that the
State of U.P. did not produce any such
document or report. There was no further
record to show that the officer who had
issued the warrant of arrest and before
whom Kunwar Pal Singh was produced was
satisfied that there was no chance of
Kunwar Pal Singh paying up the amount
due to be paid by him either in part or in full
and as such he was being detained in the
Tehsil-lock-up. Thus, we find that the
actions of the authorities of the Revenue
Department, like, the Tehsildar or the
Collecting Amin were completely in
infraction of some mandatory Rules and
procedures set down by them and, thus,
what we find is that not only the issuance of
warrant of arrest was frivolous and
unsupportable by law but the arrest and
confinement of Kunwar Pal Singh into
custody was also not supported by the
relevant Rules.

31. We simply want to reiterate the
old adage that if law requires something to
be done in a particular manner, it has to be
done in that particular manner or not at all.

32. If the rules set down certain
procedures and steps for realization of the
arrears of land revenue by following them
then the revenue authorities should not have
invented their own rule and procedure to
justify the illegal and unlawful arrest and
detention in custody of Kunwar Pal Singh.

33. We are of firm opinion that in the
garb of following Rules the authorities
violated and abused the personal liberties of
Kunwar Pal Singh and when they found
their actions being brought under the
scanner of judicial review, they created
1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

documents. Their actions are not only
arbitrary but against the Rules. Their actions
caused Kunwar Pal Singh to remain in
custody from 9.2.2012 to 22.2.2012. This
period of confinement was definitely in
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India as the Revenue Authorities, i.e.,
Tehsildar, Budaun and Collecting Amin,
Budaun appear completely encroaching
upon the personal liberties of Kunwar Pal
Singh and thereby they wrongfully confined
him into custody.

34. Now Kunwar Pal Singh has been
released. This information was placed
before this Court by an affidavit dated
2.4.2012 and the order drawn by this Court
on that date also records the fact subject to
the statement being verified by the C.J.M.,
Budaun. We do not have any other report
regarding the stand or information given to
the Court by the learned AGA. For the
illegal and wrongful confinement of
Kunwar Pal Singh, he deserves to be
compensated. If the wrongful confinement
was in the garb of compliance to Rules or
procedure the Court has always to put itself
on guard not only to secure the liberties of a
person, but also to properly compensate
such a person if it comes to a finding that
the personal liberty of such a person has
been violated and abused.

35. We are of the opinion that a
compensation of Rs. 50,000/- shall be
appropriate
under
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case which is required
to be paid by the State of U.P. to Kunwar
Pal Singh , the petitioner. We direct that the
above amount be paid to him within six
weeks
from
the
present
order
and
compliance to this order be reported by
filing an affidavit.

36. We make it clear that it shall be
the prerogative of the State and its
authorities to realize the compensation
amount from the concerned Tehsildar and
Collecting Amin in appropriate proportions.

37. We must record the meaningful
assistance rendered to the Court by Sri
Pradeep Kumar Rai, Advocate, who was
requested to assist as Amicus Curiae. We
direct that the High Court Legal Service
Committee pay him a fee of Rs.15,000/- for
assisting us.

38. This writ petition drawn suo-motu
by the Court is disposed of in the above
terms.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ANURAG KUMAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14978 of
2012

Brahm Pal Panchal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Thru' Secy. & Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Awadhesh Kumar Mishra
Sri Brijesh Upadhyay
Sri Dharampal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I./2012/5374
A.G.A.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Territorial Jurisdiction-in contravention
of COFEPOSA Act 1974-petitioner earlier
approached before Mumbai High Courtbeing
failure
present
petition
with