# Munni Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 945
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-27
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 34527 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/munni-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49447
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Sri Pradeep
Kumar, Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sri Tarun
Agrawal, Sri C.B. Yadav (Sr. Adv.)

U.P.
Kshettra
Panchayat
and
Zila
Panchayat (Election of Adhyaksha and
Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1994 - Rules 35, 43,
44 & 49 - Election petition - Order
declaring election of returned candidate
void - Maintainability of writ petition -
Held : In the instant case the nomination of
one candidate was rejected and the other
candidate had withdrawn, leaving only one
candidate (petitioner) in the field, and the
Election
Tribunal
declared
his
(petitioner)
election void under Rule 43, there being no
other candidate who could be declared
duly elected under Rule 44, no appeal lies
under Rule 49 which is confined to an order
made under Rule 44. The order declaring the
election of the returned candidate as void
comes within the ambit of Rule 43 of Rules of
1994 and thus, no appeal lies. Right of appeal
as provided under Rule 49 of Rules of 1994 is
confined and limited to order made by Judge
under Rule 44 of the Rules of 1994. Remedy of
appeal is available only when the returned
candidate is replaced by another candidate.
(Paras 15, 16, 20 ) (E-5)

## Text

11 All. Munni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
945
represented by a separate Standing Counsel
(Revenue) of Lucknow and Allahabad as
the case may be. Sub Section (2) of Section
73 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, however
provides that nothing in this chapter shall
precluded
State
Government
or
for
appointing such counsel for the conduct or
suit provided in which Gram Panchayat is a
party on such terms as may be prescribed.

36. Similarly, in case of Daulat Ram
(village pradhan) and another v. State of U.P.
reported in 2017 (134) RD 830, it has been held
that the writ petition at the instance of the
petitioner is not maintainable since it has not been
filed by counsel as provided under Section 73 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

37. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further tried to raise an argument on the basis of
authority letter, annexed as annexure no. 1 to the
petition, quoted above, that the petitioner has been
authorised by Land Management Committee to
file this petition before this Court.

38. From the perusal of the aforesaid
authority letter, it is clear that it is vague, though it
refers to a resolution dated 20.07.2023 but the
copy of the same has not been filed by the
petitioner. Further, the aforesaid authority letter
has been given by the pradhan to himself and that
too without any date. There is not averment in the
writ petition as to the fact that ever permission was
granted on the resolution of the Land
Management Committee by the S.D.M. or
Collector for filing the writ petition.

39. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out
that the present petition has been filed by
Rambabu son of Kedar Nath in his individual
capacity. Even in the writ petition there is no
averment that the petitioner is a pradhan of the
village. It has been further contended by the
learned Standing Counsel that a writ petition by a
pradhan in individual capacity is not maintainable.
The petition is to be filed either by the Gram
Sabha
or
concerned
Land
Management
Committee and not individually by Pradhan in his
personal capacity. In this regard, learned Standing
Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. reported in 2015 (3)
AWC 3167 wherein it has been held that a
petition in individual capacity by a member of the
Gram Panchayat without there being a resolution
of Gram Sabha is not maintainable. Further as per
the Appendix-2 to the U.P. Revenue Code Rules,
2016, it is the Gram Panchayat which is a body
corporate and vested with the capacity of
suing and being sued in its statutory name.
Even
by
a
resolution,
the
Land
Management Committee cannot authorise
an individual member of Gaon Sabha (even
pradhan) to institute the proceedings on
behalf of Gaon Sabha in his individual
capacity.

40. In view of the forgoing
discussion, I am of the view that the writ
petition as framed is not maintainable and
is accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 945
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 34527 of 2023

Munni Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bal Mukaund Singh, Sri Shri Prakash
Mishra, Sri Ravi Kant (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Sri Pradeep
Kumar, Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sri Tarun
Agrawal, Sri C.B. Yadav (Sr. Adv.)

U.P.
Kshettra
Panchayat
and
Zila
Panchayat (Election of Adhyaksha and
Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1994 - Rules 35, 43,
44 & 49 - Election petition - Order
declaring election of returned candidate
void - Maintainability of writ petition -
Held : In the instant case the nomination of
one candidate was rejected and the other
candidate had withdrawn, leaving only one
candidate (petitioner) in the field, and the
Election
Tribunal
declared
his
(petitioner)
election void under Rule 43, there being no
other candidate who could be declared
duly elected under Rule 44, no appeal lies
under Rule 49 which is confined to an order
made under Rule 44. The order declaring the
election of the returned candidate as void
comes within the ambit of Rule 43 of Rules of
1994 and thus, no appeal lies. Right of appeal
as provided under Rule 49 of Rules of 1994 is
confined and limited to order made by Judge
under Rule 44 of the Rules of 1994. Remedy of
appeal is available only when the returned
candidate is replaced by another candidate.
(Paras 15, 16, 20 ) (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Kant, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Bal
Mukund Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. C.B. Yadav, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar
Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.6
and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed
assailing
the
impugned
order
dated
20.09.2023 passed by respondent no.2 vide
which election of petitioner for the office of
Block
Pramukh
of
Block
Gangoh
Provincial Election Area No.98, District
Saharanpur, has been declared void.

3. The petitioner was elected as a
Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh, TehsilNakud, District-Saharanpur under O.B.C.
(Woman)
reserved
category
in
the
uncontested elections held under Rule 14 of
U.P. Kshetra Panchayat (Election of
Pramukhs
and
Up-Pramukhs
and
Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules,
19941
by
the
results
declared
on
10.07.2021.

4. An election petition under Rule 35
of Rules of 1994 was filed by respondent
no.6 on 06.08.2021 with a prayer to set
aside the uncontested election of the
petitioner (opposite party no.4 in the
election petition) dated 10.07.2021 for the
office of Block Pramukh of Block Gangoh,
Provincial
Election
Area
No.98,
Saharanpur declaring the election of the
returned candidate (petitioner) as void. The
election petition came to be decided finally
on 20.09.2023 wherein the order dated
10.07.2021 passed by opposite party no.3
was set aside and the election of petitioner,
the returned candidate, was declared void.
Challenging the aforesaid order, the present
petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for respondent
no.6
raising
preliminary
objection
regarding maintainability of the writ
petition, submits that Rule 35 provides
manner and time of presenting the election
petitions.

6. As per Rule 37, the election
petitioner may claim either of the following
declarations/reliefs;

(a) that the election of returned
candidate is void; and
11 All. Munni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
947

(b) that the election of returned
candidate is void and that he himself or any
other candidate has been duly elected.

7. As per Rule 43 of Rules of 1994, if
a Judge hearing the election petition, after
making such enquiry finds in respect of any
person whose election is called in question
by means of filing an election petition, that
his election was valid, he shall dismiss the
petition as against such person. However, if
the Judge finds that the election of any
person is invalid, he shall either-

(a) declare a casual vacancy to
have been created; or

(b) declare another candidate to
have been duly elected.

8. As per Rule 44 of Rules 1994, if
any person who has lodged an election
petition has, in addition to calling in
question the election of returned candidate,
claimed a declaration that he himself or any
other candidate has been duly elected and
the Judge is of the opinion that in fact the
petitioner or such other candidate received
a majority of the valid votes, Judge shall
after declaring the election of the returned
candidate to be void, declare the petitioner
or such other candidate, as the case may be,
to have been duly elected.

9. Emphasising upon Rule 49, learned
counsel for respondent no.6 submits that an
appeal shall lie against every order made by
the Judge under Rule 44 to the High Court
within 30 days from the date of order.

10. Emphasising upon the aforesaid
provisions,
he
submits
that
election
petition, which has been filed under Rule
35, has to be presented praying for relief
either to declare the election of the returned
candidate void, and that the election of the
returned candidate is void and that he
himself i.e the election petitioner or any
other candidate has been duly elected. In
the present case, the election petition
challenging the election of the petitioner as
Block Pramukh has been filed with the
relief to set aside the election dated
10.07.2021 and declare the election of the
returned candidate i.e the petitioner, as
void.

11. Learned Senior counsel next
contended that the order impugned dated
20.09.2023 has been passed declaring that
the election of the returned candidate is
void, therefore, the same has been passed
under Rule 44 of Rules of 1994 as there is
no finding that the election of the petitioner
was invalid, hence no declaration that
casual vacancy has been created nor any
other candidate has been declared as duly
elected. In the present case Rule 49 is very
specific about filing of appeal against order
passed under Rule 44.

12. While elaborating his arguments,
he further submits that the election of the
petitioner as Pramukh has been declared
void i.e. "0" Shunya and not invalid. Word
'invalid' cannot be taken to mean void,
thus, order has been passed under Rule 44.

13. Rebutting the submissions as
made by learned counsel for respondent
no.6, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that under Rule 44 read with Rule
40(e) and Rule 49 of Rules of 1994; an
appeal does not lie against the order
impugned in the facts of the case. He
further submits that in the present case, the
petitioner was elected as Pramukh of Block
Gangoh, Provincial Election Area No.98 in
the uncontested election, results of which
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were declared on 10.07.2021 as the
nomination papers filed by one candidate
were rejected and the other withdrew his
candidature.

14. Needless to say that the election
petition can be filed claiming either of the
following declarations;

(a) that the election of returned
candidate is void; and

(b) that the election of returned
candidate is void and that he himself or any
other candidate has been duly elected.

15. In the present case, there being no
other candidate as the petitioner was
elected unopposed being the only qualified
candidate, there was no question or
occasion to declare the election petitioner
or any other candidate as duly elected.
Even otherwise, the relief as claimed by the
respondent no.6 while filing the election
petition is to declare the election of
returned candidate as void.

16. Rule 44 deals with the grounds on
which a candidate other than the returned
candidate may be declared to have been
elected. As there was no other candidate
who could have been declared as elected,
therefore, the appeal as provided under
Rule 49 does not lie in the present facts of
the
case
and
the
writ
petition
is
maintainable.

17. Emphasising upon the provisions
of Rule 40(e), he submits that no appeal or
revision shall lie on a question of fact or
law against any decision of the Judge. The
provisions of Rule 44 has to be read with
Rule 40(e) in order to see as to whether as
per the Rule 49, an appeal lies against the
order declaring the election of the returned
candidate as void or not. He further submits
that two situations should be there to see
that the order has been passed under Rule
44, one, the election of returned candidate
is declared void and the other that the
candidate who has secured majority of
valid votes has been declared duly elected.

18. Learned Chief Standing Counsel
for the State Mr. Kunal Ravi Singh and
learned counsel for Election Commission
Mr. Tarun Agrawal, while assisting the
Court, submit that Rule 49 of Rules of
1994, provides for an appeal against the
order passed under Rule 44, it does not
provide for an appeal in any other case.

19. As per Rule 37, (i) election
petitioner can claim either of the two reliefs
mentioning therein that the election of the
returned candidate is void; and (ii) that the
election of the returned candidate is void
and that he himself or any other candidate
has been duly elected.

20. Rule 44 covers only the situation
contemplated in Rule 37(b), therefore,
remedy of appeal is available only when
the returned candidate is replaced by
another candidate. Rule 40(e) bars any
appeal or revision except for cases covered
by Rule 49 read with Rule 44.

21. Rule 43(2) also maintains the
distinct nature of the reliefs and orders can
be passed by the Judge.

22. Elaborating their arguments, the
aforesaid counsels submit that in the case
of election of a Pradhan, which is a direct
election, Section 12-C(6) of U.P. Panchayat
Raj Act provides for a remedy of revision
against any order passed by the Election
Tribunal whereas Section 14(2) makes the
decision of Election Tribunal final and
11 All. Munni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
949
binding in the case of members. No appeal
or revision is provided. The only remedy is
writ petition. The position is re-affirmed by
U.P. Kshettra Panchayat (Removal of
Disqualification and Settlement of Disputes
Relating
to
Disqualification
and
Membership) Rules of 1994.

23. The aforesaid counsels submit that
the election for the office of Block
Pramukh or Pramukh of Zila Panchayat,
U.P. is governed under (Election of
Adhyaksha
and
Up-Adhyaksh
and
Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules of
19942 and that of Block Pramukh of
Kshettra Panchayat by Rule of 1994,
accordingly, as per Rule 35, the petitioner
may
claim
either
of
the
following
declarations;

(i) that the election of the
returned candidate is void; and

(ii) that the election of the
returned candidate is void and that
he himself or any other candidate
has been duly elected.

24. As per Rule 40 of the Zila
Panchayat Rules, 1961, if the Judge
finds that the election of any
person is invalid, he shall either
declare a casual vacancy to have
been created or declare any other
candidate
to
have
been
duly
elected.

25. As per Rule 42, the ground
for which a candidate other than
the
returned
candidate
may
be
declared to have been elected.

26. Rule 47 provides for an appeal
from every order made by a Judge under
Rule 40.

27. Placing the aforesaid provisions,
learned counsels submit that the aforesaid
rules of Zila Panchayat Rules are parimateria to Rules of 1994 i.e. (i) Rule 35 of
Zila Panchayat Rules is pari-materia with
that of Rule 37 of Rules of 1994; (ii) Rules
40 with that of Rule 44 of Rules of 1994.

28. That though the Zila Panchayat
Rules provide a remedy for an appeal under
Rule 47 against any orders passed under
Rule 40 which is pari-materia to Rule of 43
of Rules of 1994, no such appeal is
provided under Rule 49 of the Rules of
1994 against any order passed under Rule
44 and not Rule 43.

29. To make it more specific, when
all the provisions of Zila Panchayat Rules
and that of Rules of 1994 dealing with the
elections of Kshettra Panchayat and Zila
Panchayat respectively, both are parimateria to each other and the provisions of
Rule 40 of Zila Panchayat Rules and that of
Rule 43 of Rules of 1994 provide that the
Judge can pass an order declaring a casual
vacancy to have been created if he finds the
election of any person is invalid or can
declare any other candidate to have been
duly elected. In one, against the order, the
aforesaid appeal is provided whereas in the
other no appeal is provided against the
aforesaid, the intention of legislation is
very clear.

30. Thus, they submit that the present
writ petition is maintainable and no appeal
lies against the order impugned.

31. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

32. Before dealing with the issue of
maintainability, it would be appropriate to
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
place aforesaid provisions of Rules of
1994.

33. The Rules 37, 40(e), 43, 44 and 49
of Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats
(Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs
and and Settlement of Election Disputes)
Rules, 1994, are quoted herein below:

"37. Relief that may be claimed
by the petitioner- A petitioner may claim
either of the following declarations-

(a) that the election of the
returned candidate is void; and

(b) that the election of the
returned candidate is void and that he
himself or any other candidate has been
duly elected.

*** *** ***

40. Procedure- Except so far as
provided by the Act or in the Rules, the
procedure provided in the Civil Procedure
Code, 1990 in regard to suits, shall, insofar
as it is not inconsistent with the Act or any
provision of these Rules and it can be made
applicable, be followed in hearing of the
election petition;

(e) no appeal or revision shall lie
on a question of fact or law against ny
decision of the Judge;

*** *** ***

43. Finding of the Judge.- (1) If
the Judge after making such inquiry as he
deems fit finds in respect of any person
whose election is called in question by a
petition, that his election was valid he shall
dismiss the petition as against such person
and award costs at his discretion.

(2) If the judge finds that the
election of any person was invalid he shall
either-

(a) declare a casual vacancy to
have been created; or

(b) declare another candidate to
have been duly elected and in either case
may award costs at his discretion.

44.
Grounds
on
which
a
candidate other than the returned
candidate may be declared to have
been elected.- If any person who has
lodged an election petition has, in
addition to calling in question the
election of the returned candidate,
claimed a declaration that he himself or
any other candidate has been duly
elected and the Judge is of the opinion
that in fact the petitioner or such other
candidate receive a majority of thevalid
votes, the Judge shall after declaring
the election of the returned candidate to
be void, declare the petitioner or such
other candidate, as the case may be, to
have been duly elected.

Provided that the petitioner or
such other candidate shall not be
declared to be duly elected if it is
proved
that
the
election
of
such
candidate would have been void if he
had been the returned candidate and a
petition had been presented calling in
question his election.

*** *** ***

49. Appeal against the order
of the Judge- An appeal shall lie from
every order made by the judge under
Rule 44 to the High Court within thirty
days from the date of the order."
11 All. Munni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
951

34. Having perused the provisions as
referred to above, it is very clear that in an
election petition as presented under Rule
35, the relief of declaring the election of
returned candidate as void and that the
election petitioner or any other candidate
has been duly elected, can be prayed for.
While hearing the petition, if the Judge
finds that the election of the returned
candidate is invalid, he shall declare casual
vacancy to have been created or declare
any other candidate to have been duly
elected. Thus, in the present case, where
the respondent no.4 has been declared as
winning candidate in the uncontested
elections, as the nominations filed by one
of the candidates was rejected and that of
the other was withdrawn, there being no
other candidate, once the election of the
returned candidate is declared void, a
vacancy automatically arises and no
declaration of casual vacancy having been
created is required. To clarify the position,
in the facts of the present case, there was
no other candidate available to have been
declared duly elected. Therefore, the
order declaring the election of the
returned candidate as void comes
within the ambit of Rule 43 of Rules
of 1994 and thus, no appeal lies.

35. A right of appeal is a
statutory right and is available for the
purpose for which such an appeal is
provided for. The entire object of the
provision of an appeal is to provide of
a forum for challenging the order
relating to the orders passed while
deciding the election petition. When
once the relief claimed by the election
petitioner is to declare the election of
the returned candidate as void, there
being no other candidate, the case
does not fall under the ambit of Rule
44.

36. The right of appeal as provided
under Rule 49 of Rules of 1994 is clearly
confined and limited to every order made
by Judge under Rule 44 of the Rules of
1994. Rule 44 speaks about the grounds on
which a candidate other than the returned
candidate may be declared to have been
elected, which means, in case, in addition
to calling in question, the election of the
returned candidate, the election petitioner
claims a declaration that he himself or any
other candidate has been duly, elected, then
on the basis of the majority of valid votes
as received by such a candidate, the Judge
after declaring the election of returned
candidate to be void, declare such person,
be the election petitioner or such other
candidate, as the case may be, to have been
duly elected.

37. From the aforesaid, it can be said
that plain and ambiguous meaning being
given to Rule 44, the same would require
some other candidate to have been duly
elected, once the election of returned
candidate has been declared void. In the
present facts of the case, this is not the
situation where in the uncontested election
of the returned candidate i.e. the respondent
no.4, has been declared void, without
specifying that a casual vacancy has arose
and without there being any declaration of
any other candidate, who is not available in
the present case, has not been duly elected.

38. In other words, the language of
Rule 44 is clear and the rule does not
demand that we should substitute any other
word or read the word interchangeably for
achieving the object in purpose of any Act
or Rule. On the contrary, the objective of
the Act is more than clear that the
legislature intended to provide a very
limited right to appeal. The orders which
can be appealed against have been
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
specifically stipulated by unambiguously
excluding
the
provisions
which
the
legislature
did
not
intend
to
make
appealable under the provisions of the Act.
It is always expected of the Court to apply
plain rule of construction rather than trying
to read the words into the statute which
have been specifically omitted by the
legislature.

39. It is well known that the right of
appeal is not a natural or inherent right. It
cannot be assumed to exist unless expressly
provided for by statute. Being a creature of
statute,
remedy
of
appeal
must
be
legitimately traceable to the statutory
provision.

40. A statute is stated to be the edict
of legislature. It expresses the will of
legislature and the function of the court is
to interpret the document according to the
intent of those who made it. It is a settled
rule of construction of the statute that the
provisions
should
be
interpreted
by
applying plain rule of construction. The
courts normally would not imply anything
which is inconsistent with the words
expressly used by the statute. In other
words, the court would keep in mind that
its function is jus dicere, not jus dare. The
right of appeal being creation of the statute
and being a statutory right does not invite
unnecessarily liberal or strict construction.
The best norm would be to give literal
construction keeping the legislative intent
in mind.

41. While reading the analogous
provisions of rules of Zila Panchyat Rules
and Rules of 1994, Rule 40 of Zila
Panchayat Rules being pari-materia to Rule
43 of Rules of 1994, the legislature in its
wisdom made difference in Rule 40
capping the same with provisions of Rule
47 of Zila Panchayat Rules providing for
appeal against the aforesaid, while looking
into the provisions of Rule 43 of Rules of
1994, no such appeal is provided. Likewise,
there is difference in Rule 49 of Rules of
1994 wherein appeal is provided against
every order passed under Rule 44, which is
analogous with the provisions of Rule 42,
against which, no appeal is provided under
Rule 47 of Zila Panchayat Rules. Thus,
where no other candidate has been duly
elected after declaration of election as void,
it cannot be interpreted in a manner to
create a situation that filing of appeal is
required in the present case.

42. It is well settled that literal
interpretation should be given to a statute if
the same does not lead to an absurdity.

43. Rule 44 should be interpreted in
the natural and ordinary sense. It is well
settled in several decisions of Apex Court
as well as High Court that the interpretative
function of the Court is to discover the true
legislative intent. It is trite that in
interpreting a statute the Court must, if the
words are clear, plain, unambiguous and
reasonably
susceptible
to
only
one
meaning, the words should be given the
same
meaning,
irrespective
of
the
consequences. Those words must be
expounded in their natural and ordinary
sense. When a language is plain and
unambiguous and admits of only one
meaning no question of construction of
statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself.
Courts are not concerned with the policy
involved or that the results are injurious or
otherwise, which may follow from giving
effect to the language used. If the words
used are capable of one construction only
then it would not be open to the Courts to
adopt any other hypothetical construction
on the ground that such construction is
11 All. Smt. Mutuni Vs. The Collector, District Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi & Ors.
953
more consistent with the alleged object and
policy of the Act. In considering whether
there is ambiguity, the Court must look at
the statute as a whole and consider the
appropriateness of the meaning in a
particular context avoiding absurdity and
inconsistencies or unreasonableness which
may render the statute unconstitutional.

44 . It is equally well settled that in
interpreting a statute, effort should be made
to give effect to each and every word used
by the Legislature. The Courts always
presume that the Legislature inserted every
part thereof for a purpose and the
legislative intention is that every part of the
statute should have effect. A construction
which
attributes
redundancy
to
the
legislature will not be accepted except for
compelling
reasons
such
as
obvious
drafting errors.

45. Be that as it may, having
considered the provisions enshrined under
Zila Panchayat elections where remedy of
appeal lies from every order made by the
Judge under Rule 44, it has to be seen that
Rule 44 provides the grounds on which a
candidate other than the returned candidate
may be declared to have been elected. In
the
present facts
of
the
case, the
uncontested election of returning candidate
has been declared as void and as there
was no other candidate, who has been
duly elected, no ground exists on
which candidate other than returned
candidate could have been declared
elected. Thus, impugned order does
not fall within the ambit of Rule 44,
hence no appeal lies.

46. In view of the above submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties and
the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds
that present writ petition is maintainable.

47. Put up as fresh on 20.11.2023 to
be heard on merits at 2:00 P.M.

48. As an interim measure, the State
Election Commissioner (Panchayat and
Local Bodies), State Election Commission,
U.P., Lucknow i.e. respondent no.2 is
directed not to notify the elections in
question without leave of the Court.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 953
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 60108 of 2008

Smt. Mutuni ...Petitioner
Versus
The Collector, District Sant Ravidas Nagar
Bhadohi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 300-A - Right to Property -
Adequate Compensation Right to property
is not merely a constitutional or statutory
right but also a human right. In a welfare
State, statutory authorities are bound to
pay adequate compensation to persons
whose property has been acquired by the
appropriate Government. Article 300-A
provides that no person shall be deprived
of his property save by authority of law.
Taking possession of or acquiring the
property
of
a
citizen
amounts
to
deprivation, which can occur only in