# Lalji Yadav v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 284
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-29
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 32884 of 2022
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalji-yadav-v-union-of-india-ors-49145
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Sri Anand Tiwari, C.S.C.

(A) Writ - Issuance of mandamus -
mandamus may be issued to compel the
authorities to do something but it must
be shown that there is a statute which
imposes a legal duty and aggrieved
party has a legal right under the statute
to enforce legal rights - a right not
exercised for a long time becomes nonexistent - mere representation does not
extend
the
period
of
limitation
-
aggrieved person has to approach the
Court
expeditiously
and
within
reasonable time.(Para - 11,16,17)

Land of petitioner acquired - received full
compensation - provided under Section 23 of
Land Acquisition Act - controversy - to
provide employment - in lieu of land acquired
by
respondent-Corporation
or
by
other
authorities - various representations made -
no action taken on representations - no
statute shown - for which a mandamus has
been sought - hence present writ petition.
(Para - 4,7,11)

HELD:-Petitioner not placed any statutes
before court on basis of which an employment
could be given to him in lieu of the land,
which was taken by the Corporation in the
year 1985. No relief could be granted to
petitioner. Laches on part of petitioner for
approaching Court. (Para -15,16,18)

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
1 All. Lalji Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
285

## Text

284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
NCR No.111/2012 and NCR No.114/2018.
The Director General of Police has also
given his view that the reports with regard
to the non-cognizable cases could not be
made the basis for rejecting an application
for issuance of passport if they had not
been investigated into.

15. Under such circumstances, we
issue the following directions :-

(1) The passport form of the
petitioner for the issuance of a passport be
considered within a period of two weeks
from the date of presentation of a certified
copy of this order before the respondent
no.2-Regional Passport Officer, Regional
Passport Office, Vipin Khand, Gomti
Nagar, Lucknow;

(2) Since we are finding that in
quite a few cases the reports of noncognizable cases in which the concerned
Magistrate had not even ordered for
investigation were being taken into account
for rejection of passport, we issue a
direction to the Director General of Police
to instruct his officers to give a report with
regard to the pendency of reports in noncognizable cases after appropriate and
proper application of mind;

(3)
Outright
the
passport
applications be not rejected under section
6(2)(f) of the Passports Act if orders of the
Court, where the criminal case is pending,
have been passed as per the Government
Order dated 25.8.1993. The Director
General of Police to issue notification in
this regard also.

16. With these observations, the writ
petition is, accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 284
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2022
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-C No. 32884 of 2022

Lalji Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shri Ram Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Anand Tiwari, C.S.C.

(A) Writ - Issuance of mandamus -
mandamus may be issued to compel the
authorities to do something but it must
be shown that there is a statute which
imposes a legal duty and aggrieved
party has a legal right under the statute
to enforce legal rights - a right not
exercised for a long time becomes nonexistent - mere representation does not
extend
the
period
of
limitation
-
aggrieved person has to approach the
Court
expeditiously
and
within
reasonable time.(Para - 11,16,17)

Land of petitioner acquired - received full
compensation - provided under Section 23 of
Land Acquisition Act - controversy - to
provide employment - in lieu of land acquired
by
respondent-Corporation
or
by
other
authorities - various representations made -
no action taken on representations - no
statute shown - for which a mandamus has
been sought - hence present writ petition.
(Para - 4,7,11)

HELD:-Petitioner not placed any statutes
before court on basis of which an employment
could be given to him in lieu of the land,
which was taken by the Corporation in the
year 1985. No relief could be granted to
petitioner. Laches on part of petitioner for
approaching Court. (Para -15,16,18)

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
1 All. Lalji Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
285
1. Dau Dayal Vs A.D.A & ors. , Writ Petition No.
27690 of 1991

2. Butu Prasad Kumbhar & ors. Vs S.A.I.L. &
Ors. , JT 1995(3) SC 428

3. B.E.G.F.C.S. Ltd. Vs Sipahi Singh & ors. ,
AIR 1977 SC 2149

4. Ravindra Kumar Vs D.M. , Agra , 2005 (2)
AWC 1650.

5. Baljeet Singh (Dead) through L.R. & ors. Vs
St. of U.P. & ors. , (2019) 15 SCC 33

6. Surjeet Singh Sahni Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
SLP (C) No.3008 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Office
of
the
Additional
Solicitor General of India has accepted
notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and
Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel has
accepted notice on behalf of respondents
no.2 to 4.

2. The petitioner has preferred present
writ petition inter-alia with the following
prayers :-

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 06.02.1989 issued by
Respondent No. 4

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to consider the
grievances of the Petitioner and passed an
appropriate order upon the letters pending
before
Respondents
within
stipulated
period to meet the end of Justice."

3. The facts in brief as contained in
the writ petition are that the land of the
petitioner was acquired by the respondentIndian Oil Corporation in the year 1985.
Thereafter, an application was submitted by
the petitioner seeking his appointment with
the respondent-Corporation on the ground
that his land has been acquired hence apart
from compensation, which was paid in lieu
of the land an appointment should also be
given by the corporation. The claim for
appointment of the petitioner was rejected
by the respondent-Corporation because he
was over age. Subsequently a meeting was
held in the area office of the respondentIndian Oil Corporation at Allahabad on
18.01.1989.Thereafter
a
letter
dated
February 06, 1989 was written by the
Deputy General Manager (Personal), Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. New Delhi to the
Employment
Officer,
Employment
Exchange, Varanasi, U.P. In the said letter
name of the petitioner was at item number1. The letter reads as follows :-

"Kindly refer the meeting our
Area Manager, Allahabad, Shri P.N.Shukla
had with you on 18/1/89 on the subjects :

1/ We would like you to confirm
that shri Lalji Yadav has not been
sponsored because he is over age. His date
of birth being 20.1.60.

2/ Although the name of Shri
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri - Matabhik has
appeared twice in the list of land- losers
(Sl.Nos. 31-32 & 167-168), but his name
has not been sponsored by you so far. You
may take necessary action for sponsoring
the name of Shri Ashok Kumar.

3/ Whereas you have sponsored
the name of shri Ram Ashrey s/o Shri Jagar
Dev who is 8th pass. But, you have not
sponsored the name of Shri Shyan Narain
s/o Shri Sarvesh who is also 8th pass. You
may please sponsor the name of Shri
Shyam Narain also.

4/ You have sponsored the name
of one shri Rajinder Prasad s/o sh
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tribhuvan whereas as per our list of
landlosers, the candidate sponsored by the
land-loser is Sh. Rajesh Kumar s/o sh
Tribhuvan, and not sh. Rajinder Kumar.
You may please clarify this.

You may please take necessary
action on items mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 4
at the earliest so as to enable us to proceed
further on the matter."

4. It is argued that after the aforesaid
letter was written no action was taken
either by the Employment Exchange
Officer or by the Officer of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. It is stated in paragraph
12 of the writ petition that petitioner is
continuously approach the respondents no.3
and
4
and
thereafter,
various
representations were made by him but no
action has been taken in the matter. Since
no
action
has
been
taken
on
the
representations made by the petitioner
hence present writ petition.

5. On the other hand it is argued by
Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondent-corporation that the land of the
petitioner was acquired in the year 1985 but
nothing has been stated in the entire writ
petition that any assurance was given by
the corporation to the petitioner to provide
employment. It is further argued that the
petitioner was sleeping over his rights from
last more than 37 years hence apart from
merits of the case, the writ petition is liable
to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

6. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

7. After land of the petitioner was
acquired, he received full compensation as
provided under Section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act, which means an amount
equal to full market value of the land with
interest as well as solatium under sub
section (2) of Section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act was paid to him. Time and
again controversy to provide employment
in lieu of the land acquired by the
respondent-Corporation
or
by
other
authorities were came up before this Court
from time to time.

8. It is well known that there is
already surplus staff in most Government
Departments
and
Public
Sector
Undertakings, and further jobs cannot be
given in this manner as that would only be
putting a greater burden on the tax payers,
and there would be violation of Article 16
of the Constitution.

9. In Writ Petition No. 27690 of
1991, Dau Dayal v. Agra Development
Authority
and
others,
decided
on
23.3.1995 the then Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, J.
held that as there is no provision for
granting
a
job
in
addition
to
the
compensation provided for in Section 23 of
the Land Acquisition Act, no such job can
be granted.

10. In the case of Butu Prasad
Kumbhar and Ors. v. Steel Authority of
India Ltd. and others, JT 1995(3) SC 428
it was held that there is no requirement
under Article 21 of the Constitution to
provide employment to a member of the
family displaced by the acquisition of land.
In Director, Mandi Pahshad v. Sohan Lal,
2003 ALJ 540, a Division Bench of this
Court held that when the petitioner has
received compensation under the Land
Acquisition
Act
he
cannot
claim
appointment in addition.

11. It is also settled law that a
mandamus may be issued to compel the
authorities to do something but it must be
1 All. Lalji Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
287
shown that there is a statute which imposes
a legal duty and aggrieved party has a legal
right under the statute to enforce legal
rights. In so far as present case is
concerned, no statute has been shown by
the counsel for the petitioner for which a
mandamus has been sought for by him. In
this connection law is well settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 21 in the
case
of
Bihar
Eastern
Gangetic
Fishermen Co-opera- tive Society Ltd. v.
Sipahi Singh and others, AIR 1977 SC
2149. The paragraph 21 is reproduced
hereinbelow :-

"21. In order that mandamus may
be issued to compel the authorities to do
something, it must be shown that there is a
statute which imposes a legal duty and the
aggrieved party has a legal right under the
statute to enforce its performance."

12. In so far as the present case is
concerned, no statutory provisions has been
placed by the counsel for the petitioner
requiring a job to be given to one member
of the family of the person whose land has
been acquired.

13. Similar controversy has also came
up before Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Ravindra Kumar v. District
Magistrate, Agra reported in 2005 (2)
AWC 1650. In the aforesaid case following
questions were placed before the Full
Bench namely:-

"(1)
Whether
Government
Orders/Circulars providing employment to
one member of a family whose land has
been acquired, (over and above the
compensation awarded under law) is valid
or not ?

(2) Whether the acquiring bodies
for whose benefit the land is acquired are
bound
by
these
Government
Orders/Circular ?

(3) Whether a writ can be issued
directing the acquiring body to consider the
claim in accordance with the Government.
Orders/Circulars ? "

14. The answer of aforesaid questions
were given by the Full Bench in paragraph
25 of the judgement, which reads as
follows :-

"(1)
The
Government
Orders/Circulars providing employment to
one member of a family of a person whose
land has been acquired (over and above the
compensation awarded under the law) are
invalid.

(2) The acquiring body for whose
benefit the land is acquired are not bound
by such Government Order/Circular.

(3) No writ can be issued
directing the acquiring body to consider the
claim in accordance with the aforesaid
Order/Government Circular."

15. In view of the settled proposition
of law as quoted above, I am of the opinion
that no relief could be granted to the
petitioner in so far as present writ petition
is concerned.

16. In so far as laches on part of the
petitioner for approaching this Court is
concerned, law is well settled by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Baljeet Singh
(Dead) through Legal Representatives and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in (2019) 15 SCC 33 that it is a
recognised principle of jurisprudence that a
right not exercised for a long time becomes
non-existent. Even when there is no
limitation period prescribed by any statute
relating to certain proceedings, in such
cases, courts have coined doctrine of laches
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
delay
as
well
as
doctrine
of
acquiescence and non suited litigants who
approached court belatedly without any
justifiable explanation for bringing action
after
unreasonable
delay--Estoppel,
Acquiescence and Waiver- AcquiescenceEvidence Act, 1872. Section 115. The
paragraph 7 is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"7.
The
matter
requires
examination from another aspect viz.
laches and delay. It is a very recognised
principle of jurisprudence that a right not
exercised for a long time is non-existent.
Even when there is no limitation period
prescribed by any statute relating to certain
proceedings, in such cases, courts have
coined the doctrine of laches and delay as
well as doctrine of acquiescence and nonsuited the litigants who approached the
court belatedly without any justifiable
explanation for bringing the action after
unreasonable delay. In those cases, where
the period of limitation is prescribed within
which the action is to be brought before the
court, if the action is not brought within
that prescribed period, the aggrieved party
loses remedy and cannot enforce his legal
right after the period of limitation is over,
however,
subject
to
the
prayer
for
condonation of delay and if there is a
justifiable explanation for bringing the
action after the prescribed period of
limitation is over and sufficient cause is
shown, the court may condone the delay.
Therefore, in a case where the period of
limitation is prescribed and the action is not
brought within the period of limitation and
subsequently proceedings are initiated after
the period of limitation along with the
prayer for condonation of delay, in that
case, the applicant has to make out a
sufficient cause and justify the cause for
delay with a proper explanation. It is not
that in each and every case despite the
sufficient cause is not shown and the delay
is not properly explained, the court may
condone the delay. To make out a case for
condonation of delay, the applicant has to
make out a sufficient cause/ reason which
prevented him in initiating the proceedings
within the period of limitation. Otherwise,
he will be accused of gross negligence. If
the aggrieved party does not initiate the
proceedings within the period of limitation
without any sufficient cause, he can be
denied the relief on the ground of
unexplained laches and delay and on the
presumption that such person has waived
his right or acquiesced with the order.
These principles are based on the principles
relatable to sound public policy that if a
person does not exercise his right for a long
time then such right is non-existent."

17. Very recently Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni
Vs. State of U.P. and others in SLP (C)
No.3008 of 2022 decided on 28.02.2022
held that mere representation does not
extend the period of limitation and the
aggrieved person has to approach the Court
expeditiously and within reasonable time.
The paragraphs 5 & and 6 are reproduced
hereinbelow :-

"5. As observed by this Court in
catena of decisions, mere representation
does not extend the period of limitation and
the aggrieved person has to approach the
Court expeditiously and within reasonable
time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is
guilty of delay and latches, the High Court
should dismiss it at the threshold and ought
not to dispose of the writ petition by
relegating the writ petitioner to file a
representation
and/or
directing
the
authority to decide the representation, once
it is found that the original writ petitioner is
guilty of delay and latches. Such order shall
1 All. Sonu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
289
not give an opportunity to the petitioner to
thereafter contend that rejection of the
representation subsequently has given a
fresh cause of action.

6. Even otherwise on merits also,
we are in complete agreement with the
view taken by the High Court. The High
Court has rightly refused to grant any relief
which as such was in the form of specific
performance of the contract. No writ under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
shall be maintainable and/or entertainable
for specific performance of the contract and
that too after a period of 10 years by which
time even the suit for specific performance
would have been barred by limitation."

18. In view of the aforesaid, the Court
is of the opinion that neither petitioner has
placed before this Court any statutes on the
basis of which an employment could be
given to him in lieu of the land, which was
taken by the Corporation in the year 1985.

19. Accordingly, present writ petition
is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 289
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 33578 of 2022

Sonu & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Brijesh Chandra Tripathi, Sri Sunil
Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Virendra Singh Chauhan

(A) Civil Law - Constitution of India,
1949 - Article 243-P - "Municipal area" ,
Article
243-Q
-
Constitution
of
Municipalities, The U.P. Municipalities
Act, 1916 - Section 3 - Declaration etc.
of transitional area and smaller urban
area, Section 3(2) - notification under
clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the
Constitution, Section 4 - Preliminary
procedure to issue notification - No
prohibition for a person not living in the
area which is sought to be included to
file objection. (Para -12)

Petitioners are Corporators of Nagar Palika
Parishad - notification - inclusion of various
Gram Panchayats in the Municipal Council -
locus to file objection against the draft
notification pendency of writ petition - final
notification in abeyance - granted time to
petitioners
to
file
objection
-
under
circumstances defect has been cured. (Para -
3,12,13)

HELD:-Defect cannot be cured as post
decisional
hearing
of
objections
is
not
contemplated under law. Objections were to
be
decided
before
finalizing
the
draft
notification and not after the issuance of final
notification. Goes to the root of the matter
and renders the final notification illegal.
(Para - 14)

Petition Allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Sri Brijesh Chandra Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel Sri Pradeep Kumar
Tripathi for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri
Virendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel
for respondent no.3.