# Mahesh Chandra and others v. State of U.P and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 322
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-11-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35569 of 2003
- **Bench:** R.K. Dash, Onkareshar Bhatt
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-chandra-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40264
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act (As amended by
U.P. Amendment Act XXII of 1954)-
Section 4,6,5A and 17- Acquisition of
Land under position taken by StateJurisdiction of Civil Court-Bar of-Civil
Suit Challenging land acquisition-Decree
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Mahesh Chandra and others V. State of U.P. and others 323
passed
quashing
acquisition,
since
notification under Ss. 4 and 6 not
published in two local newspapersPublication of notification in locality
where authorities have waived enquiry
under S.5A, dispensed with by U.P.
Amendment Act-mandamus to enforce
Civil Court decree-Maintainability-Held,
Scheme of L.A. Act is complete in itself-
Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred-Before
hearing suit by land owner on merit, Civil
Court should first decide question of
maintainability-In
Munsif
without
deciding the question of maintainability
Decreed the suit- Decree passed by Civil
Court Being nullity, held, cannot be put
into action-Writ not maintainable.

Held: Para 9

The object of the Act to acquire any land
for public purpose or for any company
would be frustrated if steps taken by the
authority in acquiring any land are
interfered by the civil court on approach
being made by the land owner. So when
a suit is filed to invalidate any action
taken in pursuance of the Act, civil court
should be loathe to exercise power and
before hearing the suit on merit, should
first
decide
the
question
of
maintainability of the suit. In the present
case, had the learned Munsif taken pains
to decide the question of maintainability
and
decide
the
same
against
the
plaintiffs, the present writ petition would
not have been filed. In our opinion, the
decree passed by the civil court being
nullity cannot be put to action and none
of the reliefs as praved for by the
petitioners can be granted.
Case law discussed:
AIR1996 Sc520. AIR1969 SC 78. AIR1996 SC

## Text

322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
V. All documents that the charged
officer wanted to see were shown to
him.

VI. The finding of the disciplinary
authority is not illegal.

In view of our conclusions, the writ
petition has no merit and it is dismissed.

End note-1: Following three charges
were levelled against the petitioner.

Article I. Sri Lav Nigam staff no. N247 (0) while functioning as manager
(shipping), Transmission Division during
the period 1990-92 produced 87 receipts
purported to have been issued by Raj
Road Lines, 291-Muthhi Ganj, Allahabad
duly verified by him towards adjustment
of
advances
drawn
by
him
and
fraudulently
claimed
Rs.
45650/-
pertaining to transport charges since the
said transport company had not supplied
trucks nor received any amounts towards
transport charges and thus, derived undue
pecuniary benefits.

Article II. Sri Lav Nigam staff no. N-247
(0)
while
functioning
as
manager
(shipping),
Transmission
Division
forwarded 107 false and fictitious receipts
for Rs. 42,940/- ostensibly incurred for
loading and unloading operations by
means of transport referred in Article I,
above
and
thereby
derived
undue
pecuniary benefits.

Article III. Sri Lav Nigam staff no. N-247
(0)
while
functioning
as
manager
(shipping),
Transmission
Division,
produced 26 false and fictitious bills
pertaining to loading and unloading of
certain items of equipments wherein he
had claimed the charges more than once
for the same item and thus derived undue
pecuniary benefits.

End note-2: Chief Justice Earl Warren,
born on March 19, 1891, was the 14th
Chief Justice of the United States of
America (1953-69). ''But, is it fair' was a
question that most of the lawyers
appearing before him had to answer. It
was on this touchstone that he tested all
state actions. And this may well be the
question to ask so far as administrative
law is concerned.

End note-3: This was in R Vs Gaming
Board 1970(2) All ER 528. This in turn
was based on off quoted dictum of Tucker
LJ in Russell Vs. Duke of Norfolk;
1964(1) ALL ER 109 and Durayappah Vs
Fernando; 1967(2) ALL ER 152.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. DASH, J.
THE HON'BLE ONKARESHAR BHATT, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35569 of 2003

Mahesh Chandra and others...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri B.B. Paul

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Awasthi
S.C

Land Acquisition Act (As amended by
U.P. Amendment Act XXII of 1954)-
Section 4,6,5A and 17- Acquisition of
Land under position taken by StateJurisdiction of Civil Court-Bar of-Civil
Suit Challenging land acquisition-Decree
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Mahesh Chandra and others V. State of U.P. and others 323
passed
quashing
acquisition,
since
notification under Ss. 4 and 6 not
published in two local newspapersPublication of notification in locality
where authorities have waived enquiry
under S.5A, dispensed with by U.P.
Amendment Act-mandamus to enforce
Civil Court decree-Maintainability-Held,
Scheme of L.A. Act is complete in itself-
Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred-Before
hearing suit by land owner on merit, Civil
Court should first decide question of
maintainability-In
Munsif
without
deciding the question of maintainability
Decreed the suit- Decree passed by Civil
Court Being nullity, held, cannot be put
into action-Writ not maintainable.

Held: Para 9

The object of the Act to acquire any land
for public purpose or for any company
would be frustrated if steps taken by the
authority in acquiring any land are
interfered by the civil court on approach
being made by the land owner. So when
a suit is filed to invalidate any action
taken in pursuance of the Act, civil court
should be loathe to exercise power and
before hearing the suit on merit, should
first
decide
the
question
of
maintainability of the suit. In the present
case, had the learned Munsif taken pains
to decide the question of maintainability
and
decide
the
same
against
the
plaintiffs, the present writ petition would
not have been filed. In our opinion, the
decree passed by the civil court being
nullity cannot be put to action and none
of the reliefs as praved for by the
petitioners can be granted.
Case law discussed:
AIR1996 Sc520. AIR1969 SC 78. AIR1996 SC
1045. AIR1996 SC 523

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

1. In the instant writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have prayed for the
following reliefs:
1.
"To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to enforce the impugned
land acquition proceedings against the
petitioners on any ground and in any
manner whatsoever.
2.
To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to interfere with the
actual
physical
possession
of
the
petitioners in respect of plot No. 322 area
3-3-15 situate in village pargana, Tehsil
Khairagarh, District Agra.
3.
To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to take follow up action in
pursuance of orders of civil court dated
31.5.1984 and 22.8.1990.
4. To issue and interim mandamus
commanding the respondents neither to
interface
with
the
actual
physical
possession of the petitioners in respect of
plot No. 322, area 3-3-15, situate in
village
pargana,
Tehsil
Khairagarh,
district-
Agra
nor
to
otherwise
dispossesses the petitioners from the
property in question on any ground and in
any manner whatsoever.
5.
To issue any other suitable writ,
order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case to
meet the ends of justice,"

2. Shortly stated, petitioners' case is
that they are the Bhumidhars of plot No.
322 of village and tehsil Khairagarh in the
district of Agra. Without their knowledge,
the said plot was acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') and necessary correction was
made in the revenue record in the name of
the State without issuing any notice to
them. It is urged that though acquisition
was made for some public purpose and
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
notification was issued under Sections 6
and 9 of the Act and symbolic possession
was
taken
on
7.8.1982,
but
after
acquisition, neither any development was
made nor compensation was paid and
petitioners were allowed to continue to
possess as before. So, they filed a civil
suit bearing O.S. No. 306 of 1982 for
permanent injunction against the State
and its officials and ultimately it was
decreed by the XVI Additional Munsif,
Agra vide judgment and order dated
31.5.1984. Appeal preferred by the state
was also dismissed for default.

3. Despite civil court's decree, no
steps have been taken to delete the name
of the state from the revenue record
concerning the aforementioned plot. Such
inaction on the part of the officials, forced
the petitioner to file the present writ
petition seeking the reliefs as ext acted
above.

4. Learned standing counsel has
filed a written note of submission
challenging the maintainability of the writ
petition and also questioning the legality
of the decree passed by the civil court. It
is stated that notification under seduction
4,6 and 9 of the Act were issued on
16.2.1982,
13.3.1982
and
26.9.1982
respectively.
After
issuance
of
notification under Section 4, Section 17
was invoked and possession was taken
and thereafter necessary entries were
made in the revenue records. In Khasra
and khatauni, plot in question has been
shown as State's property. Predecessor in
interest of the petitioners filed civil suit
bearing O.S. No. 306 of 1982 against the
state
seeking
relief
of
prohibitory
injunction and the suit was decreed on a
short point that no notification was made
in two local newspapers.
5. Challenging the judgment and
decree, appeal was preferred, but the same
was dismissed for default. It has been
urged that the writ petition is not
maintainable since no writ in the nature of
mandamus can be issued to execute the
civil court's decree. Besides, writ petition
is also not maintainable, as the petitioners
have filed to show any enforceable right
in their favour.

6. Relying upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Yadu
Nandan Garg Vs. State of Rajas than
and others, AIR 1996, 520 learned
standing counsel has contented that once
acquisition is finalized and possession is
taken, the State is entitled to possess with
absolute title free from all encumbrances
and the erstwhile landowner cannot get
any title much less any valid title. With
regard to maintainability of the suit, it is
urged that in view of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of
Dhulabhai and others Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR1969
SC 78, that where the statute gives finality
to the orders of the special tribunals, the
civil court's jurisdiction must be held to
have been excluded if there is adequate
remedy to do what the civil court would
normally do in a suit. In that view of the
matter, the suit filed by the petitioner's
predecessor
should
not
have
been
entertained being without jurisdiction. It
is further submitted that the civil court
while passing the decree, failed to notice
that Section 4 (1) of the Act was amended
by Land Acquisition (U.P Amendment)
Act No. XXII of 1954 dispensing
publication of notification in the locality
where authorities have waived the enquiry
under Section 5-A in the case where the
land is urgently needed. Besides, it is
urged, that once the land acquisition
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Mahesh Chandra and others V. State of U.P. and others 325
proceeding has reached its finality and the
possession of the land has been taken, the
only course open to the land owner or his
successor to challenge the acquisition in
the manner as provided in the Act or by
approaching the High Court by way of
filing writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution and not by filing a civil
suit.

7. The Act being a complete Code in
itself, contends the counsel, jurisdiction of
the civil court impliedly barred and if any
inference is made by the proceedings,
either pending or disposed of, the
purpose, for which the Act has been
enacted, will be frustrated. Therefore, the
court for the interest of Justice should
declare the civil court's decree passed in
favour of the petitioner's predecessor as a
nullity being without jurisdiction and
dismissed the writ petition in limine.

We have gone through the averments
made in the petition and the documents
annexed thereto, more particularly the
decree of the civil court and have
considered the submissions made by the
Learned Counsel for the parties. Way
back in 1982 notification under Section
4, 6 and 9 of the act were published and
by invoking emergency clause of Section
17, possession was taken and necessary
correction was made in the revenue
records deleting name of the land owners
and inserting name of the State. In order
to nullify the orders of the authority
passed
under
the
Act,
Petitioners'
predecessor civil suit No 306 of 1982.
Learned Additional Munsif, Agra framed
four issues of which issue Nos. 2 and 3
were as to whether the property in suit
was acquired by the state and whether the
acquisition was lawful and valid. Upon
hearing the counsel appearing for the
parties and making reference to relevant
provisions of the Act, the court held that
for acquisition of the land in question,
mandatory
provision
regarding
publication of notice was not complied
with and therefore, in the eye of law there
was no acquisition. Having so held, the
learned Munsif decreed the suit and
restrained the State and its officials from
interfering in plaintiffs' possession. True
it is, Section 4 of he Act envisages that
where the land in any locality is needed or
is likely to be needed for any public
purpose or for a company, a notification
to that effect shall be published in the
Official Gazette and in two daily
newspapers having circulation in that
locality of which at least one shall be in
the regional language. But by U.P
Amendment Act of XXII of 1954, the
mandatory requirement of publication of
notification in the locality has been done
away with in the case where the
Government is of the opinion that the land
is urgently needed and the authorities
have dispensed with the inquiry under
section 5A of the Act. The Apex Court
took
note
of
the
aforesaid
state
amendment in the case of Ghaziabad
Development Authority V. Jan Kalyan
Samiti,
Sheopuri,
Ghaziabad
and
another AIR 1996 Sc 1045 and held that
notification under Section 4 (1) is not
vitiated for non-publication of notification
in the local newspaper. Unfortunately, the
State amendment was not brought to the
notice of the learned Munsif nor the
Munsif took pains to have a glimpse of
the Act as well as the amendment before
giving his verdict. Besides the Act being a
special Statute and the authorities having
exercised their power in accordance with
law and the procedure, the Learned
Munsif should have held to have no
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
jurisdiction to decide the question of
validity of acquisition.

8. In the case of Laxmi Chand and
others Vs. Gram Panchayat, Kararia
and others, AIR 1996 SC 523, the
validity of acquisition and award passed
under the Act were challenged by filing a
civil suit. On a preliminary issue, the civil
court held that suit was not maintainable.
The matter was then carried to the High
Court. The order of the civil court was
upheld by the learned Single Judge and
upon appeal, by the Division Bench.
Lastly the matter was carried to the
Supreme Court. In Paragraph 3 of the
judgment, the court observed as under:

"It would thus be clear that the
scheme of the Act is complete in itself
and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court to take cognizance of the cases
arising under the Act, by necessary
implication, stood barred. The Civil Court
thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to give
declaration on the invalidity of the
procedure contemplated under the Act. X
X X X X X.''

9. The object of the Act to acquire
any land for public purpose or for any
company would be frustrated if steps
taken by the authority in acquiring any
land are interfered by the civil court on
approach being made by the land owner.
So when a suit is filed to invalidate any
action taken in pursuance of the Act, civil
court should be loathe to exercise power
and before hearing the suit on merit,
should first decide the question of
maintainability of the suit. In the present
case, had the learned Munsif taken pains
to decide the question of maintainability
and decide the same against the plaintiffs,
the present writ petition would not have
been filed. In our opinion, the decree
passed by the civil court being nullity
cannot be put to action and none of the
reliefs as praved for by the petitioners can
be granted.

10. In the result, writ petition fails
and the same is dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN CHATTERJEE, C.J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Special Appeal No. 90 of 1995

Raghvendra Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.P. Agarwal
Sri M.K. Mishra
Miss Anuradha Sundaram

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 311 (2)
Second Proviso Cl. (b) and 311 (3)-
Termination
of
Service-Departmental
enquiry-Dispensation
with-Satisfaction
of disciplinary authority that it would not
be
reasonable
practicable
to
hold
enquiry-Dismissal
order
needs
no
interference.

Held: Para 8, 10 & 11

From
the
order
of
the
concerned
authority it is clear that reason was
recorded by him, in writing, in which it
has been clearly stated that it would not
reasonably
practicable
to
hold
the
enquiry.
Since
the
authorities
have
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in