# Laxmi Narain Jagdish Saran Kanya Inter College v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 204
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-05-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52305 of 2000
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laxmi-narain-jagdish-saran-kanya-inter-college-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40323
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act- Ss.41 and 48(1)-
Notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 State
government
satisfied
that
petitioner
institution required a play ground for its
students-Thereafter petitioner company
entered into an agreement under S. 41cost while issuing impugned order not
afforded opportunity of hearing held
illegal-petitioner is beneficiaries hence
before withdrawal of acquisition-held,
arbitrary and illegal-Acquisition for a
public
purpose-Possession
for
play
ground given by forthwith.

Held- Paras 11 &16

Admittedly the State Government on
being
satisfied
that
the
petitioner
institution required a playground for its
students issued a notification under
Section 4 of the Act and thereafter after
consideration of the objections issued a
declaration
dated
22.3.1983
under
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Laxmi Narain Jagdish Saran Kanya Inter College V. State of U.P. and others 205
Section 6 of the Act after recording its
satisfaction that the land is needed for a
company, namely, Laxmi Narain Jagdish
Saran Shiksha Samiti for playground of
the college. Thereafter the petitioners
also entered into an agreement under
Section 41 of the Act and the entire cost
of acquisition were also borne by the
petitioners. The State Government while
issuing the impugned order has not
afforded any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners which is clearly illegal
inasmuch
as
the
petitioner
being
beneficiaries were entitled to be heard
before the withdrawal of the acquisition
as it has to suffer substantial loss.

In the present case it is not disputed
that the society is a company as defined
in the Land Acquisition Act. Hence in
view of the aforesaid decisions we are of
the opinion that the impugned order was
clearly
arbitrary
and
illegal.
The
institution is a girls institution and in our
opinion every educational institution
should have a playground because there
should be a healthy mind in a healthy
body. Sport activities are an essential
component
of
every
educational
institution
because
students
should
develop in a balanced manner and this
requires
sports
activities
also.
Unfortunately in our country women
have been suppressed for centuries but
now the time has come when their
potential must be liberated and they
must be given good education. In our
opinion good education includes some
sports activity also. In every educational
institution a playground for sports e.g.
badminton, volleyball, Basketball, table
tennis, tennis, etc. is a must so that the
students can enjoy in schools while
pursuing their studies. Hence in our
opinion the acquisition was clearly for a
public purpose and possession of the
playground should have been given
forthwith to the institution but for a long
period it has been delayed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1998 SC 1608
AIR 1998 SC 477
AIR 2001 SC 437

## Text

204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
relevant material prior to issuance of
warrant of authorization which could
have led the Commissioner to form his
reason to believe under Section 132, it is
an illegal warrant of authorization since
the aforesaid material was taken into
consideration
by
the
Director/Commissioner, subsequent to the
issuance of the warrant of authorization.

44. The decision of this Court in Dr.
Nand Lal Tahiliani vs. CIT (1988) 170
ITR 592, squarely applies to the facts of
the present case.

The aforesaid decision has been
affirmed by the Supreme Court.

45. In view of the above facts the
search and seizure in question is illegal
and is liable to be quashed. We also find
that the prohibitory orders under section
132 (3) read with section 281 B of the Act
expired on 27.2.2003 and no extension is
on the record. Hence the entire seizure
and restraint order relating to the Bank
accounts
in
question
have
become
infructuous and they are directed to be
released forthwith.

46. It is not necessary for us in the
circumstances to decide the additional
point raised by the petitioners challenging
the transfer of the case from NOIDA to
Meerut.

Both these petitions are therefore
allowed.

47. The warrants of authorization
and all proceedings subsequent thereto are
quashed. The cash and other articles and
books seized from the petitioners shall be
returned to them forthwith. Respondents
are directed not to proceed with the notice
dated 9.5.2002 and 26.10.2002.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.3.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52305 of 2000

Laxmi Narain Jagdish Saran Kanya Inter
College, Moradabad

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N.C. Rajvanshi
Sri Ajit Kumar
Sri R.D. Gupta
Sri M.K. Rajvanshi

Land Acquisition Act- Ss.41 and 48(1)-
Notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 State
government
satisfied
that
petitioner
institution required a play ground for its
students-Thereafter petitioner company
entered into an agreement under S. 41cost while issuing impugned order not
afforded opportunity of hearing held
illegal-petitioner is beneficiaries hence
before withdrawal of acquisition-held,
arbitrary and illegal-Acquisition for a
public
purpose-Possession
for
play
ground given by forthwith.

Held- Paras 11 &16

Admittedly the State Government on
being
satisfied
that
the
petitioner
institution required a playground for its
students issued a notification under
Section 4 of the Act and thereafter after
consideration of the objections issued a
declaration
dated
22.3.1983
under
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Laxmi Narain Jagdish Saran Kanya Inter College V. State of U.P. and others 205
Section 6 of the Act after recording its
satisfaction that the land is needed for a
company, namely, Laxmi Narain Jagdish
Saran Shiksha Samiti for playground of
the college. Thereafter the petitioners
also entered into an agreement under
Section 41 of the Act and the entire cost
of acquisition were also borne by the
petitioners. The State Government while
issuing the impugned order has not
afforded any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners which is clearly illegal
inasmuch
as
the
petitioner
being
beneficiaries were entitled to be heard
before the withdrawal of the acquisition
as it has to suffer substantial loss.

In the present case it is not disputed
that the society is a company as defined
in the Land Acquisition Act. Hence in
view of the aforesaid decisions we are of
the opinion that the impugned order was
clearly
arbitrary
and
illegal.
The
institution is a girls institution and in our
opinion every educational institution
should have a playground because there
should be a healthy mind in a healthy
body. Sport activities are an essential
component
of
every
educational
institution
because
students
should
develop in a balanced manner and this
requires
sports
activities
also.
Unfortunately in our country women
have been suppressed for centuries but
now the time has come when their
potential must be liberated and they
must be given good education. In our
opinion good education includes some
sports activity also. In every educational
institution a playground for sports e.g.
badminton, volleyball, Basketball, table
tennis, tennis, etc. is a must so that the
students can enjoy in schools while
pursuing their studies. Hence in our
opinion the acquisition was clearly for a
public purpose and possession of the
playground should have been given
forthwith to the institution but for a long
period it has been delayed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1998 SC 1608
AIR 1998 SC 477
AIR 2001 SC 437
(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. These two writ petitions are being
disposed of by a common judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Writ petition no. 52305 of 2000
has been filed by the petitioner college
through one Sri Ram Veer Singh, who
claimed to be the Manager of the said
college. By means of that petition the
petitioner has challenged the impugned
order
dated
26.7.2000/4.8.2000
(Annexure 14 to the writ petition) by
which a notification was issued under
Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition
Act releasing the land in question from
acquisition under the Act.

3. The petitioner is an Intermediate
College imparting education to girls
students up to intermediate level in
Moradabad city. Since the institution did
not have a play ground for its students it
approached the State Government for
acquiring a land for that purpose. Hence a
notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act was published in the
official gazette on 29.3.1980. After
disposing of the objections under Section
5-A the State Government issued a
declaration
under
Section
6
vide
Annexure 1 to the Writ petition.

4. It may be mentioned that the
petitioner college is run by a society
which is a company under Section 3 (e) of
the Act. Hence the land acquisition
proceedings for acquiring the land for the
purpose of playground was taken in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
in Part VII of the Act. The society and the
State
Government
entered
into
an
agreement under Section 41 of the Act
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
which was published in the official
gazette dated 21.3.1983 copy of which is
Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Moradabad
gave
an
award
dated
23.8.1986 determining the amount of
compensation payable to the tenure
holders vide Annexure 3 to the writ
petition. Against that award a reference
under Section 18 is pending.

5. After the award of the Special
Land Acquisition Officer the petitioner
wrote several letters to the concerned
authorities requesting them to take steps
to handover the possession of the land in
question to the petitioner vide Annexure 4
to 7 of the writ petition. However, it
appears that in view of an injunction in
civil suit no. 700 of 1986 Nathua vs. State
of U.P. in favour of the tenure holder in
the civil court possession could not be
handed over to the petitioner. It is alleged
in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that
Kanhaiya Lal, son of deceased Nathua,
tenure holder, submitted an application to
the State Government for releasing the
property from acquisition and on that
application a letter dated 7.10.1998 was
issued by the State Government to the
Director of Education for his comments
vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition. The
District Magistrate also submitted his
report on 3.11.1998 vide Annexure 10 to
the writ petition.

6. In paragraph 18 and 19 of the writ
petition it is stated that a Minister of State
was interested in getting the property
released from acquisition vide Annexure
1 to the writ petition. All of a sudden the
impugned order dated 26.7.2000/4.8.2000
has been passed releasing the property
from acquisition.

7. It is alleged that the impugned
order is wholly illegal. It is alleged that
the State Government had initiated
proceedings for acquisition after being
fully satisfied that the disputed land was
required by the petitioner for the purpose
of playground for a girls school which
was for public purpose, and now
arbitrarily it has taken a contrary view.
The petitioner has already deposited the
requisite amount towards the acquisition
charges as far back as on 10.11.1979, and
the State Government has also entered
into an agreement under Section 41 on
18.2.1983 which was published in the
official gazette. The State Government
has acted arbitrarily without cogent
reasons
in
issuing
the
impugned
notification.
It
is
alleged
that
the
petitioner being an educational institution
still requires a playground for the
students. It is alleged that the impugned
order does not disclosed any reason.

8. In writ petition no. 52305 of 2000
a counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of respondent no. 3, Kanhaiya Lal
and we have perused the same. In
paragraph 3 (d) it is alleged that the
Manager of the college, Sri Ram Veer
Singh in his letter dated 18.1.1999
addressed to the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Moradabad copy of which is
Annexure CA 4 has stated that the
property is not in the possession of the
institution and for this reason there is no
justification for utilizing the same.

9. In writ petition no. 26898 of
2001, which is the connected writ
petition, it has been stated in paragraph 14
and 15 of that writ petition that the
committee of management was illegally
taken over by Kamal Chandra Agarwal by
putting up a totally forged and false
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Laxmi Narain Jagdish Saran Kanya Inter College V. State of U.P. and others 207
management of the institution of which
Kamal Chandra Agarwal himself became
the President and made Sri Ram Veer
Singh as Manager. The said forged
committee was created in 1998 and
several petitions are pending regarding
the dispute about the committee of
management. It is alleged in paragraph 15
of writ petition no. 26898 of 2001 that Sri
Kamal Chandra Agarwal manipulated the
entire proceedings for de-acquisition of
the land and for this purpose he got a
letter dated 18.1.1999 issued by Sri Ram
Veer Singh copy of which is Annexure
CA 4 to the writ petition no. 52305 of
2000 and Annexure 6 to the writ petition
no. 26898 of 2001. In paragraph 16 of the
writ petition no. 26898 of 2001 it is
alleged that when petition no. 1 came to
know about the facts he wrote a letter
dated
22.6.1999
objecting
to
the
proceedings for de-notification. True copy
of the letter dated 22.6.1999 is Annexure
7. The petitioner also gave a similar
representation to other authorities e.g.
Joint Director of Education, Moradabad
vide Annexure 8. the petitioner in writ
petition no. 26898 of 2001 also wrote
several letters to other authorities for
taking possession of the land in question.
However, despite all this the impugned
order of release has been passed. It is
alleged in paragraph 23 that the conduct
of Sri Kamal Chandra Agarwal was to
grab the said land by some means. The
tenure holder has allegedly executed a
registered agreement to sell the land in
favour of Sri Kamal Chandra Agarwal on
15.9.1986 and has also executed a
registered Power of Attorney in his favour
vide paragraph 30 of writ petition no.
52305 of 2000.

10. We have carefully perused the
affidavits in these petitions and we are of
the opinion that these petitions deserve to
be allowed.

11.

Admittedly
the
State
Government on being satisfied that the
petitioner
institution
required
a
playground for its students issued a
notification under Section 4 of the Act
and thereafter after consideration of the
objections issued a declaration dated
22.3.1983 under Section 6 of the Act after
recording its satisfaction that the land is
needed for a company, namely, Laxmi
Narain Jagdish Saran Shiksha Samiti for
playground of the college. Thereafter the
petitioners also entered into an agreement
under Section 41 of the Act and the entire
cost of acquisition were also borne by the
petitioners. The State Government while
issuing the impugned order has not
afforded any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners
which
is
clearly
illegal
inasmuch
as
the
petitioner
being
beneficiaries were entitled to be heard
before the withdrawal of the acquisition
as it has to suffer substantial loss.

12. In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs.
State of Gujrat AIR 1998 SC 1608 the
Supreme Court held that where the
acquisition is for a company then
opportunity of hearing and reasons have
to be given by the State Government. In
the present case the impugned order does
not disclose any good reason. All it says
is that the land is not needed in the public
interest, which is neither here nor there. In
para 30 of writ petition no. 26898 of 2001
it is alleged that the land is still required
for the Girls College as it has no
playground.

13. In para 26 of writ petition no.
26898 of 2001 it has been alleged that the
impugned order of de-notification was
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
passed without giving opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner. This allegation is
not seriously disputed.

14. In Amarnath Ashram Trust
Society vs. Governor of U.P. AIR 1998
SC 477 the Supreme Court held that
withdrawal of land acquisition proceeding
by the State Government after the
agreement between a company and State
Government was executed and Section 6
notification was issued was arbitrary and
illegal.

15. In State Government Houseless
Harijan Employees Association Vs. State
of Karnataka AIR 2001 SC 437 also a
similar view has been taken.

16. In the present case it is not
disputed that the society is a company as
defined in the Land Acquisition Act.
Hence in view of the aforesaid decisions
we are of the opinion that the impugned
order was clearly arbitrary and illegal.
The institution is a girls institution and in
our opinion every educational institution
should have a playground because there
should be a healthy mind in a healthy
body. Sport activities are an essential
component
of
every
educational
institution
because
students
should
develop in a balanced manner and this
requires
sports
activities
also.
Unfortunately in our country women have
been suppressed for centuries but now the
time has come when their potential must
be liberated and they must be given good
education. In our opinion good education
includes some sports activity also. In
every educational institution a playground
for sports e.g. badminton, volleyball,
Basketball, table tennis, tennis, etc. is a
must so that the students can enjoy in
schools while pursuing their studies.
Hence in our opinion the acquisition was
clearly
for
a
public
purpose
and
possession of the playground should have
been given forthwith to the institution but
for a long period it has been delayed.

17. We, therefore, direct that the
possession of the land shall be given
forthwith to the petitioner institution so
that the playground is available for the
girls school immediately. We may also
mention that the suit which was filed to
prevent taking over possession was to our
mind wholly malafide and frivolous and
in fact not maintainable. The suit
proceedings are hence quashed. We
further deprecate the attitude of Kamal
Chandra Agarwal respondent no. 4 in writ
petition no. 52305 of 2000 who got an
agreement and power of attorney signed
in his favour from the tenure holder. We
are satisfied that it was he who was
behind the release proceeding for his
mischievous ends. The letter of Ram Veer
Singh dated 18.1.1999 Annexure CA 4
was clearly motivated and at any event it
cannot be treated to mean that the college
should not have a playground. In para 30
of writ petition no. 26898 of 2001 it is
alleged that the college still needs a
playground as it has none.

18. The petitions are allowed. No
order as to costs.
---------

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Naresh Chandra Kapoor V. O.P.S. Malik and another 209
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.673 of 1993

Naresh Chandra Kapoor
...Petitioner
Versus
O.P.S.Malik and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri K.M. Dayal
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri L.M. Singh
Sri Atul Dayal
Sri A.K. Gupta
Sri S.C. Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.S. Singh
Sri S.M.A. Kazmi
Sri U.M. Sharma
S.C.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Sections
12
and
20-Writ
Petition-Order
summoning
respondents
No.
1
personally before court-Application for
contempt of Court disobedience and
violation of stay order-Application for
recall of summoning order on ground
that,
since
writ
petition
finally
dismissed-Held, one can not escape the
consequences
of
disobedience
and
violation of interim orders-Committed by
them prior to dismissal of writ petitionplea bar under S. 20 of Contempt of
Courts, not applicable.

Held: Paras 21 & 29

Applying the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of
the present case I find that the in the
present
case
the
proceedings
for
contempt
commenced
when
the
petitioner
filed
the
present
application/petition on 8th April, 1993
and, therefore, the bar of Section 20 of
the Act is not applicable.

Thus, in view of the settled proposition
that
one
cannot
escape
the
consequences
of
disobedience
and
violation of interim orders committed by
them prior to the dismissal of the writ
petition, the argument of Sri Sharma
that since the writ petition has finally
dismissed the notices could not have
been
issued
is
misplaced.
If
the
argument of Sri Sharma is accepted then
it would be subversive of the Rule of Law
of Law and would seriously erode the
majesty and dignity of the Courts. There
cannot be any dispute that after the
dismissal of the writ petition no benefit
can be derived from the interim order as
it stands merged but the position for
action being taken for the alleged
disobedience/violation of the interim
orders prior to the dismissal/final orders
being passed in the proceeding stands on
a different footing.
Case law discussed:
1991 (2) AWC 881
AIR 1975 SC 2057
(1992) 3 SCC 1
1997 (1) AWC 453
JT 2001 (6) SC 330
AIR 1997 SC 1240
1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 641
AIR 1999 SC 2140
JT 2001 (1) SC 123
AIR 1956 All 258
1991 Karn.L.J. 352
1952 (2) All.E.R. 567

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Before deciding the present
application for recall of the order dated
14.5.2002 passed by this Court issuing
Notice to O.P.S. Malik, it is necessary to
state the facts giving rise to the
application filed for contempt and the
proceedings taken by this Court.

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in