# Manish Kumar Patel v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1854
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-06
- **Case number:** J. Writ-C No. 2511 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-kumar-patel-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54551
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Industrial Development
Act,1976-Section 2(d)-The petitioner an
agriculturist
challenged
a
notification
dated 25.09.2023 issued u/s 2(d) of the
Act,1976 which included his village within
the
territorial
limits
of
the
U.P.
Expressways
Industrial
Development
Authortiy(UPEIDA)-He argued that this
inclusion
would
prevent
him
from
continuing
agricultural
activities
and
affect his right to live, including the ability
to construct the house-The court held that
the notification was neither arbitrary nor
malafide-the petitioner failed to show any
misuse of power or ulterior motives
behind the notification-The court affirms
the State's discretion to promote planned
industrial development while protecting
agricultural rights until land acquisition
occurs as per legal norms.(Para 1 to 11)
.(E-6)

## Text

1854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
argument to be misconceived, inasmuch as
the protection which the Constitution
provides under Article 300-A is that a
person would not be deprived of his
property except in accordance with law.
Since
the
acquisition
herein
is
in
accordance with the provisions of the Act
of 1894, the consequence in the nature of
vesting of land cannot be treated to be an
act violative of Article 300-A.

19. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1854
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI,
J.

Writ-C No. 2511 of 2024

Manish Kumar Patel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Birendra Kumar Arya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Jai Bahadur Singh

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Industrial Development
Act,1976-Section 2(d)-The petitioner an
agriculturist
challenged
a
notification
dated 25.09.2023 issued u/s 2(d) of the
Act,1976 which included his village within
the
territorial
limits
of
the
U.P.
Expressways
Industrial
Development
Authortiy(UPEIDA)-He argued that this
inclusion
would
prevent
him
from
continuing
agricultural
activities
and
affect his right to live, including the ability
to construct the house-The court held that
the notification was neither arbitrary nor
malafide-the petitioner failed to show any
misuse of power or ulterior motives
behind the notification-The court affirms
the State's discretion to promote planned
industrial development while protecting
agricultural rights until land acquisition
occurs as per legal norms.(Para 1 to 11)
.(E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J. & Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This petition has been filed by
the petitioner, who claims to be the resident
of village Wari at district Prayagraj,
challenging a notification issued by the
State Government dated 25.9.2023, under
Section
2(d)
of
the
U.P.
Industrial
Development Act, 1976, whereby various
villages including village Wari has been
included within the territorial limits of the
U.P. Expressways Industrial Development
Authority (UPEIDA). The notification is
primarily challenged on the ground that the
petitioner, who is agriculturist of the village
would now be prevented from undertaking
any agricultural activity on his own land. It
is also submitted that on account of the
notification under challenge the petitioner
would
be
prevented
from
raising
construction of his house etc. It is also
submitted that the petitioner's right to live
would also be affected.

3. Petition is opposed by the
learned State counsel as also Sri J.B. Singh,
learned counsel for the second respondent,
on the ground that the notification issued
by the State is perfectly just and valid and
requires
no
interference.
3 All. Manish Kumar Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1855
4. In order to appreciate the
contentions
advanced
it
would
be
appropriate to refer to the provisions
contained in the U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 6 of
1976). This Act has been passed by the
State
Legislature
to
provide
for
Constitution of an Authority for the
development of certain areas in the State
into industrial and urban township and for
matters connected therewith. Section 2(d)
of the Act contains definition of 'Industrial
Development Area' to mean an area
declared as such by the State Government
by notification. The Authority has been
defined under Section 2(b) to mean an
Authority constituted under Section 3 of
the Act. Section 3 of the Act empowers the
State
Government
to
constitute
an
Industrial Development Authority for any
industrial development area notified under
Section 2(d).

5. Section 3(1) of the Act reads as
under:

"The
State
Government
may, by notification, constitute for
the purposes of this Act, An
authority to be called (Name of the
area)
Industrial
Development
Authority,
for
any
industrial
development area."

6. By virtue of sub-section 2 of
Section 3, the Industrial Development
Authority is to be a body corporate. The
Constitution of the members of the
Authority is then specified in Section 3.
The
functions
of
the
Industrial
Development
Authority
have
been
specified in Section 6 of the Act. The object
of the Authority is to secure the planned
development of industrial development
area. For the purposes of such planned
industrial development of the area, powers
are given to the Industrial Development
Authority to demarcate and develop sites
for industrial, commercial and residential
purpose according to the plan; to provide
infrastructure for industrial, commercial
and
residential
purposes;
to
provide
amenities and to do other ancillary
functions as are specified in Section 6
including to regulate the erection of
buildings and setting up of industries.
Section 7 confers power upon the Authority
to transfer its land or buildings. Powers of
the Authority to issue various directions are
contained in Section 8. Section 9 of the Act
contains an embargo whereby no person is
authorised to erect or occupy any building
in the industrial development area in
contravention of any building regulations
made by the Authority. The Authority is
conferred jurisdiction to require proper
maintenance of site or building or levy tax
etc. Various provisions of the U.P. Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973 have
also been incorporated in the Act of 1976.

7. From the scheme of the Act as
has been noticed above, it is apparent that
the State Government is competent in law
to issue a notification under Section 2(d) of
the Act and thereby any area declared by
the State Government by notification would
be treated as an industrial development
area. This industrial development area will
have to be for a particular Industrial
Development Authority constituted under
Section 3 of the Act. The notification herein
clearly reveals that the villages specified in
the schedule to the notification would be
included in the area of UPEIDA. The
power of the State to declare an area as
1856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
industrial development area under the Act
of 1976 is not questioned. The notification
under challenge is thus shown to have been
issued in exercise of valid authority vested
in the State by virtue of Section 2(d) of the
Act of 1976.

8. The first argument advanced on
behalf of the petitioner is that specific
reasons have not been disclosed as to why
the land earmarked in the schedule to the
notification are proposed to be included in
the industrial development area. This
argument of the petitioner does not appeal
to the Court, inasmuch as the law does not
require any exhaustive explanation to be
given in the notification under Section 2(d)
of the Act as to why a particular area is
required to be included in the industrial
development
area
of
the
concerned
Industrial Authority. It is always the
prerogative of the State to include a
particular area within the limits of the
Industrial Development Authority. There is
nothing stated in the petition which may
show the notification to be malafide or
arbitrary.
The
respondent
Industrial
Development
Authority
has
been
constituted essentially for development of
industrial areas near-by the expressways. It
is undisputed that village Wari situates in
close vicinity to National Highway No. 2.
There is no allegation in the writ that the
land included in the limits of the
respondent
Industrial
Development
Authority is included for some oblique
purpose or that there is a colourable
exercise of power exercised by the State, in
that regard. In the absence of any such plea,
we are not inclined to accept the petitioner's
argument that the land of village Wari
cannot be included in the industrial
development area only because specific
reasons have not been enumerated in that
regard.

9. The other contention of the
petitioner is that the petitioner would be
prohibited
from
undertaking
any
agricultural activity on his land. This
argument is wholly misconceived. The Act
of 1976 empowers the State to constitute
Industrial
Development
Authority
for
development of certain areas according to
the plan for industrial development. The
Authority would be empowered to exercise
such jurisdiction and functions as are
specifically entrusted to it under the Act of
1976. The Authority would be entitled to
regulate the development in the notified
industrial development area and to ensure
that the development in such area is not
unplanned.

10. We find no reason to object to
such planned industrial development of the
area. The State otherwise has the right to
acquire
land
for
valid
purpose
in
accordance with law. Unless the land is
acquired for a valid purpose, as per law, the
agriculturist would continue to use his land
for agricultural purpose. It is not shown in
the writ that any of the agricultural activity
in the area is proposed to be obstructed
merely on inclusion of the land of village
Wari in the limits of the Industrial
Development Authority. The agricultural
activities which are being undertaken by
the petitioner would continue unless the
petitioner's land itself is acquired in
accordance with law. The argument that the
petitioner would be deprived of utilising his
agricultural
land
is
therefore
found
misconceived.
11. In view of the deliberations
and discussions as above, we find the writ
3 All. Santosh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda & Anr.
1857
petition to have no force and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1857
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-C No. 3761 of 2023

Santosh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda &
Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajendra Prasad Lodhi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Penal
Code,1860Sections 147,148,149 & 302 - Indian Arms
Act,1959-Sections
17(3)
18-Petitioner
challenged the cancellation of his arms
license-his license was canceled after an
FIR was filed against the petitioner-he
was acquitted in criminal case though on
grounds of benefit of doubt-The court held
that the petitioner's right to retain his
arms license, emphasizing that criminal
case pendency or acquittals on benefit of
doubt do not justify cancellation.(Para 1
to 20)

The writ petition is allowed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Pramod Kumar Vs St. of U.P (2010)5 ADJ 594

2. Mukesh Kumar Yadav Vs Commr Lko Div, Lko
(2017)35 LCD 2017

3. Indrajeet Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2021)
10 ADJ 471
4. Dy. Inspr Gen. of Police & anr..Vs S.
Smuthiram (2013)1 SCC 598

5. St. of Raj. & ors. Vs Love Kush Meena (2021)
8 SCC 774

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri Rahul Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing counsel for the
respondents.

2. The instant petition has been
filed praying for the following main relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing
of the impugned order dated 18.01.2023
passed by opposite party No.1 in Case
No.00462 of 2021 (Santosh Kumar Vs.
State),
computerized
Case
No.C202108000000462, under Section 18
of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and order dated
18.03.2021 passed by opposite party No.2
in Case No.00485/2021 computerized Case
No.D202108150000485, State Vs. Santosh
Kumar, under Section-17 (3) of Indians
Arms Act, 1959, as contained in Annexure
Nos.1 & 2 respectively to this writ
petition."

3. The case set forth by learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner was having an arms license. An
incident occurred on 17.03.2020, on the
basis of which an FIR was lodged against
the petitioner and certain other persons on
18.03.2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149
and 302 of the IPC. The case was registered
as Case Crime No.78 of 2020. After
issuance of show cause notice and after
considering the reply of the petitioner, the
competent authority vide order dated
18.03.2021, a copy of which is Annexure
No.2 to the writ petition, considering the