# Madhyamik Shiksha Parikshad v. District Judge, Baghpat and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 61
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-11-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60795 of 2009
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/madhyamik-shiksha-parikshad-v-district-judge-baghpat-and-others-41519
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921Section-22-Bar of jurisdiction of civil
Courts-Civil Suit for summoning answer
sheet and to award appropriate marks-
interim-application-civil
court
issued
direction-held-without jurisdiction-order
not sustainable.

Held: Para-8

Having perused the records and having
considered the aforesaid submissions, it
is evident that the entire exercise
undertaken by the plaintiff-respondent
was misdirected and the application for
summoning the answer-books was also
misplaced. The trial court and the
revisional court, therefore, erred in
proceeding to summon the answer-
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
books,
as
such,
the
orders
are
unsustainable.

## Text

1 All] Gopal Singh and another V. State of U.P. and others
61
under Section 10 (5) or 10(6), the ceiling
proceedings had abated and the land stood
restored to the petitioner but yet the
Revenue Authorities are not entering his
name.

4. In the counter affidavit though it
is stated that a notification under Section
10(5) was issued, however, neither the
date of possession has been disclosed nor
any possession memo appears to have
been executed. There is nothing on record
to show that the possession even under
Section 10(6) was ever taken. The
petitioners have annexed a copy of the
reply under the Right to Information Act
dated 26.11.2009 issued by the Tehsildar,
Sadar, Agra showing that the actual
physical possession remains with the
petitioners and in fact no legal possession
memo was ever executed with regard to
the disputed land. Thus, it is apparent that
the petitioners are still in possession of
the disputed land.

5. The Repeal Act of 1999 envisages
that all action, subject to the provision
made in that Act itself, shall abate. It is
provided under Section 3 that even if a
notification under Section 10(3) has been
issued vesting the vacant land in the State
Government and also compensation has
been paid, but if the possession has not
been taken, the land would be restored to
the land holder, however, subject to return
of the compensation if received. In the
present case, it is not the case of the
respondents that compensation has been
paid and they have miserably failed that
the
possession
was
ever
taken
in
accordance to the provision of the
repealed Act.

6. For the reasons above, this
petition
stands
allowed
and
the
Authorities are directed to delete the name
of the State from the revenue record and
record the name of the owner of the
disputed land in accordance to law, if
possible, within a period of two months
from the date of submission of a certified
copy of this order.

No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60795 of 2009

Madhyamik Shiksha Parikshad ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Baghpat and others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.S. Tomar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey

U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 1921Section-22-Bar of jurisdiction of civil
Courts-Civil Suit for summoning answer
sheet and to award appropriate marks-
interim-application-civil
court
issued
direction-held-without jurisdiction-order
not sustainable.

Held: Para-8

Having perused the records and having
considered the aforesaid submissions, it
is evident that the entire exercise
undertaken by the plaintiff-respondent
was misdirected and the application for
summoning the answer-books was also
misplaced. The trial court and the
revisional court, therefore, erred in
proceeding to summon the answer-
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
books,
as
such,
the
orders
are
unsustainable.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri J.S. Tomar, learned
Standing Counsel for the State and
learned
counsel
for
the
Caveator-
respondent No.3.

2. The challenge is to the orders
passed by the trial court dated 19.9.2008
and the order of the learned District Judge
dated 15.5.2009 in Revision whereby the
direction of the trial court to produce the
answer-books has been maintained.

3. The plaintiff-respondent No.3
filed a Suit. Her allegation was that she
has faired well in the High School
Examination of 2007 and was expecting
more than 70% marks but she was
awarded far lesser marks than her
expectation, as such, the Suit should be
decreed and appropriate relief should be
granted. The relief claimed was to grant
proportionate marks to the petitioner and,
accordingly, correct her result.

4. During the pendency of the Suit,
an application was moved for summoning
the answer-books and the said application
No.42-C was allowed by the trial Court
directing Board of High School and
Intermediate Examination, who is the
petitioner before this Court, to produce
the answer-books. The said order has
been maintained in revision. Hence this
petition by the Board.

5. Learned Standing Counsel
contends that the trial court and the
revisional court have both completely
over looked Section 22 of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which
is as follows:-

"22. Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts.-
No order or decision made by the Board
or any of its Committees in exercise of the
powers conferred by or under this Act
shall be called in question in any Court."

6. It is contended that the results of
the respondent - plaintiff has been
declared in accordance with the powers
conferred on the Board under the Act and
the Regulations framed there under and,
as such, such orders declaring the result of
the plaintiff-respondent could not be
subjected to scrutiny before the civil
court.

7. Apart from this, there is a specific
procedure provided for scrutiny under the
Act itself and it was open to the plaintiffrespondent to have applied for the same
and sought the redressal of her grievances
which has admittedly not been done.

8. Having perused the records and
having
considered
the
aforesaid
submissions, it is evident that the entire
exercise undertaken by the plaintiffrespondent was misdirected and the
application for summoning the answerbooks was also misplaced. The trial court
and the revisional court, therefore, erred
in proceeding to summon the answerbooks,
as
such,
the
orders
are
unsustainable.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the orders dated 19.9.2008
and 15.5.2009 are quashed.
---------
1 All] Smt. Shanti Devi V. State of U.P. and others
63
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64470 of 2009

Smt. Shanti Devi

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raj Karan Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act-
1976-Section 10 (3)-Proceeding against
dead
person-
taking
possessiondeclaration of surplus land about 1471
square meters notice neither served
upon erstwhile owner-nor possession
taken under U.P. Urban Land Ceiling
(taking
of
possession
payment
of
amount and allied matters) direction
1983 by producing form no. 4 LC-11 in
column 9-notice issued against dead
person-entire proceeding stood abateddirection not to interfere with possession
of petitioner given.

Held: Para-7 & 8

However,
learned
Standing
counsel
contends that the possession of the
vacant land after it vested in the State
under Section 10 (3) was taken over by
the State. Apart from a bald allegation in
the
counter
affidavit
there
is
no
documentary proof to prove the factum
of possession. In fact even the date on
which the possession was allegedly
taken by this State is not disclosed in the
counter affidavit. The State Government
itself in exercise of powers under Section
35 of the Act has issued directions
known as U.P. Urban Land Ceiling
(Taking
of
Possession,
Payment
of
Amount and Allied Matters) Direction
1983 for the purposes of taking over
possession. These directions provide that
where possession of the excess vacant
land is taken either Sub Section 5 or Sub
Section 6 of Section 10, entry would
have to be made in the register in Form
No. ULC-III and also in column no. 9 of
the Form No. ULC-I. It further mandates
the Competent Authority to put his
signatures in the column no. 2 of Form
No. ULC-I and column no. 10 in Form No.
ULC-III in token of verification of the
entries of possession. Neither there is
any allegation in the counter affidavit
nor copies of any of the forms have been
annexed to show that in fact possession
was taken.

The issue can be examined from another
angle. Learned Standing counsel does
not dispute that there is no other
provision for taking of possession under
the Act except the power provided under
Section 10(5) and 10(6). Admittedly, the
very first step of taking over possession
was taken through a notice under
Section 10 (5) dated 26.6.1999 which
was issued in the name of the land
holder. The fact that the land holder died
on 4.3.1996 has not been denied. Thus,
even the notice under Section 10 (5) was
void and would not give any right or
power to the respondents to seek or take
over possession of the disputed land.
Case law discussed:
[2005 (60) ALR 535].

(Delivered by Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The relief claimed in this petition
is for a mandate to the respondents not to
take actual physical possession of the
disputed land treating as having been
declared surplus and further restrain them
from interfering with their possession and