# M/s Beltek India Limited v. The State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 548
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 62452 of 2004
- **Bench:** M. Katju, A.C.J. V.C. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-beltek-india-limited-v-the-state-of-u-p-others-40421
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri Uma Nath Pandey
S.C.

Land
Acquisition
Act-Ss.
4,6,11-A-
Acquisition of land for planned Industrial
development-It is for public purpose in
urgently-
Normal
made
of
taking
possession is by executions possession
memo by Amin-once it is done, it will be
deemed that possession has been taken
by respondents- Hence, application for
recall
of
judgment
dismissing
writ
petition, rejected.

Held: Para 7

Thus it is evident from these decisions
that once possession memo has been
executed it has to be deemed that
possession has been taken by the
respondents. It may be mentioned that
normal mode of taking possession by the
authorities is that the Amin goes to the
spot and executes a possession memo.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] M/s Beltek India Ltd. V. The State of U.P. and others
549
Once this is done it has to be deemed
that possession has been taken by the
respondents.
Case law discussed:
JT 1996 (3) SC 60
JT 1995 (6) SC 248
AIR 1975 SC 1767
AIR 1996 SC 122
2002(2) AWC 1629
2002 (5) AWC 3665
W.P. 27317 of 2001 decided on 5.3.2004

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
548
behalf.

4. An establishment comes within
the purview of the Payment of Gratuity
Act 1972 only if it belongs to one of the
three categories specified in Section 1 (3)
of the Act.

The High Court Bar Association is
surely not a factory, mine oilfield,
plantation, port or railway company.
Hence clause (a) of Section 1(3) of the
Act does not apply to it.

5. As regard clause (b) of Section
1(3) this too will not apply because this
relates to a shop or establishment within
the meaning of any law for the time being
in force in relation to shops and
establishments in the State in U.P. This
law is the U.P. Dookan Aur Vaniya
Adhisthan Adhiniyam, 1962. The High
Court Bar Association, Allahabad is not a
shop or establishment which comes
within the purview of the aforesaid U.P.
Act 1962.

6. As regards clause (c) of Section
1(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act this
will apply only when there is Central
Govt. notification in this behalf. We have
not been shown any Central Govt.
notification under clause (c) of the
Section 1 (3) which brings the High Court
Bar Association, Allahabad within the
purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Hence it is clear that the Payment of
Gratuity Act 1972 does not apply to the
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad at
all. Hence the order dated 15.3.91
challenged before the learned Single
Judge and any order passed under the
Payment of Gratuity Act so far as it
relates to the High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad
was
wholly
without
jurisdiction.

7. Hence this special appeal is
allowed and the impugned judgment
dated 7.5.2003 is set aside. The order
dated 15.3.91 is quashed.
Appeal Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.8.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 62452 of
2004

M/s Beltek India Limited ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri Uma Nath Pandey
S.C.

Land
Acquisition
Act-Ss.
4,6,11-A-
Acquisition of land for planned Industrial
development-It is for public purpose in
urgently-
Normal
made
of
taking
possession is by executions possession
memo by Amin-once it is done, it will be
deemed that possession has been taken
by respondents- Hence, application for
recall
of
judgment
dismissing
writ
petition, rejected.

Held: Para 7

Thus it is evident from these decisions
that once possession memo has been
executed it has to be deemed that
possession has been taken by the
respondents. It may be mentioned that
normal mode of taking possession by the
authorities is that the Amin goes to the
spot and executes a possession memo.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] M/s Beltek India Ltd. V. The State of U.P. and others
549
Once this is done it has to be deemed
that possession has been taken by the
respondents.
Case law discussed:
JT 1996 (3) SC 60
JT 1995 (6) SC 248
AIR 1975 SC 1767
AIR 1996 SC 122
2002(2) AWC 1629
2002 (5) AWC 3665
W.P. 27317 of 2001 decided on 5.3.2004

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This is an application to recall the
judgment dated 31.3.2004 by which
petition was dismissed following the
decision of this Court in Kaloo Ram v.
State of U.P. and others, writ petition no.
27317 of 2001.

2. In paragraph 5 and 6 of the
affidavit
filed
in
support
of
this
application it is stated that the writ
petition was dismissed in the absence of
the learned counsel for the petitioner who
could not attend due to his illness. Hence
we have heard the petitioner again on
merits of the case but we are not inclined
to recall the judgment dated 31.3.2004.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has alleged that actual physical possession
of the land was not taken from the
petitioner as stated in paragraph 27,32 and
33 of the writ petition. However, in a
counter affidavit it has been stated in
paragraph 18,24 and 25 that possession
was taken by the respondents on 27.11.99.
True copy of the possession memo is
Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit.

4. In Balmokand v. State of Punjab,
JT 1996 (3) SC 60 it was held by the
Supreme Court that the normal mode of
taking possession and giving delivery to
the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of
taking possession of the land. Subsequent
thereto the retention of possession would
tantamount only to illegal or unlawful
possession. Hence merely because the
appellant subsequent to 27.11.99 retained
actual possession of the acquired land the
acquisition cannot be said to be bad in
law.

5. In Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State
of Bihar, JT 1995 (6) SC 248 (vide
paragraph 11) following the earlier
decision in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v.
M.D. Bhagwat and others, AIR 1975 Sc
1767 it was held that once possession of
the land was taken by the Government
even if thereafter the owner of the land
entered upon the land and resumed
possession such act does not have the
effect of obliterating the consequences of
vesting.

6. It has been repeatedly held that
once possession memo has been executed
it will be deemed that possession has been
taken by the respondents vide Awadh
Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR
1996 SC 122, Bal Mukund Khatri
Educational and Indusrial Trust v.
State of Punjab JT 96 (3) SC 60
Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. 2002
(2) AWC 1629, Kaloo Ram v. State of
U.P. Writ petition no. 27317 of 2001
decided on 5.3.2004 etc. The acquisition
proceedings will not lapse under section
11-A in this situation vide Patharoo v.
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, 2002
(5) AWC 3665.

7. Thus it is evident from these
decisions that once possession memo has
been executed it has to be deemed that
possession has been taken by the
respondents. It may be mentioned that
normal mode of taking possession by the
authorities is that the Amin goes to the
spot and executes a possession memo.
Once this is done it has to be deemed that
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
550
possession has been taken by the
respondents. After all, the Amin is not
expected to remain on the spot day and
night after executing the possession
memo. The land in question is required
for planned industrial development and as
held in Kaloo Ram vs. State of U.P.
(supra) this is for public purpose and is
urgent
as
the
country
requires
industrialization for its progress. The
relevant case law has been discussed in
great detail in Kaloo Ram's case (supra)
and we fully agree with the same.
Application rejected.
Recall application rejected.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.8.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Special Appeal No. 960 of 2004

Managing Director, U.P. State Ware Housing
Corporation and another
....Appellants
Versus
Sri Radhey Shyam
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri O.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri V.K. Singh

Service
Law-Dismissal-Chargesheet-
served-not replied by the delinquent
employee-disciplinary authority is bound
to hold ex-party enquiry-without enquiry
dismissal order-held illegal.

Held- Paras 4, 5 & 6

From the above facts it is evident that in
fact on enquiry was held against the writ
petitioner after giving him the charge
sheet.
The Division Bench of this Court has held
that after the charge sheet is given the
date, time and place of the enquiry
should be intimated to the employee and
on that date the oral and documentary
evidence against the petitioner should be
led in his presence and he should be
given opportunity of cross examination.
If despite intimation the employee fails
to appear in the enquiry then an exparte
enquiry
should
be
held,
but
the
employee's service cannot be terminated
without holding an enquiry, the enquiry
officer must hold an exparte enquiry in
which the evidence must be led against
the employee.

In the present case a perusal of the
enquiry report (Annexure 28 to the writ
petition) shows that merely because the
petitioner did not reply to the charge
sheet it was deemed that he accepted
the charge. This is not legally correct as
held in Subhash Chandra Sharma's case.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1962 SC 1348
1999 (4) AWC 3227

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This special appeal has been filed
against the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 9.7.2004.

2. We have heard the learned
counsel for the parties and have carefully
perused the impugned judgment and find
no infirmity in the same.

3. The facts are set out in great detail
in the judgment of the learned Single
Judge and hence we are not repeating the
same. However, we may mention that a
charge sheet dated 21.3.1993 in respect of
caste certificate was issued to the
petitioner but the enquiry in this regard
was subsequently dropped. Thereafter no
enquiry was held against the writ
petitioner and instead the enquiry report
dated 29.7.1999 was submitted by the