# Naresh Chandra and others v. Meerut Development Authority Meerut and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 505
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-04-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28765 of 2003
- **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/naresh-chandra-and-others-v-meerut-development-authority-meerut-and-another-40154
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 sec. 3 (a)-
land covered by constructions- whether
respondents bound to exempt such land-
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
506
held no it an administrative decision- no
interference called for.

Held- Para 5

Learned
counsel for the
petitioners
submitted that in the impugned order it
is mentioned that the development
authority took possession, which is not
correct. Be that as it may, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned
order in exercise of our discretion under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The
respondents are not bound to exempt
the
land
over
which
there
are
constructions. That is their discretion,
and it is an administrative decision.

## Text

2 All] Naresh Chandra and others V. Meerut Development Authority and another
505
permanently at Lingapalem. Both the
order of the Government, namely, the
order dated March 7, 1962, and that
dated April 18, 1963, were not legally
passed; the former, because it was made
without giving notice to the Panchayat
Samithi, and the latter, because the
Government had no power under Section
72 of the Act to review an order made
under Section 62 of the Act and also
because it did not give notice to the
representatives
of
Dharmajigudem
Village. In those circumstances, was it a
case for the High Court to interfere in its
discretion and quash the order of the
Government dated April 18, 1963? If the
High Court had quashed the said order, it
would have restored an illegal order it
would have given the health center to a
village contrary to the valid resolutions
passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The
High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly
refused to exercise its extraordinary
discretionary power in the circumstances
of the case."

9. The counsel for the petitioner
lastly contended that by U.P. Ordinance
No. 4 of 2002, the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act has been
amended by substituting Clause (h) to the
following effect-

"(h) any educational institution
situated within the terminal area of the
Kshettra Panchayat as established by a
persons belonging to a Scheduled Castes
or Scheduled Tribes on such terms and
condition as may be prescribed."

10. The aforesaid Ordinance No. 4
of 2002 was promulgated on June 21,
2002. The said ordinance has already
been repealed by U.P. Act no. 11 of 2002
and
Clause
(h)
which
was
added/substituted in Section 198 (1) has
not been retained in the amendment Act.
Further more the said Ordinance does not
help the petitioner in any manner since
firstly, the petitioner do not belong to
Scheduled Caste and secondly, the
allotment in favour of the petitioner was
made much earlier to above Ordinance.
The submission of the counsel for the
petitioner based on Clause (h) of Section
198 (1) as substituted by U.P. Ordinance
No. 4 of 2002 is misconceived.

11. None of the submission as raised
by the counsel for the petitioner has any
substance. No good grounds have been
made out for exercise of jurisdiction by
this Court under Article 226 in the facts of
present case.

The
writ
petition
is
rejected
summarily.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 10.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28765 of 2003

Naresh Chandra and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Meerut Development Authority Meerut
and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri P.K. Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B. Dayal, S.C.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 sec. 3 (a)-
land covered by constructions- whether
respondents bound to exempt such land-
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
506
held no it an administrative decision- no
interference called for.

Held- Para 5

Learned
counsel for the
petitioners
submitted that in the impugned order it
is mentioned that the development
authority took possession, which is not
correct. Be that as it may, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned
order in exercise of our discretion under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The
respondents are not bound to exempt
the
land
over
which
there
are
constructions. That is their discretion,
and it is an administrative decision.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties. This is the third round of litigation
in the matter.

2. The petitioner no. 1's father
challenged notifications of the year 1980
under sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act in respect of the land in
dispute but the Supreme Court upheld the
validity of the said notifications as stated
in para 3 of the writ petition.

3. The Supreme Court gave liberty
to the acquiring authority to pass award
within two years. The award was given
within that time, and writ petition no.
6198 of 1988 against that award has been
dismissed on 3.8.98 by this Court vide
annexure 4 to the petition.

4. A perusal of the judgment dated
3.8.98 Annexure 4 to the petition shows
that it was held therein that so far as the
land
acquisition
proceedings
are
concerned, the matter is concluded, the
petitioners may make a representation
before
the
Meerut
Development
Authority, Meerut and the State Govt.
praying for release of the land. The
petitioners
made
representation
vide
annexure -8 but the same has been
rejected
by
the
orders
dated
22.4.2003/21.5.2003 annexure 9 to the
petition.

5. We have carefully perused the
impugned order and find no illegality in
the same. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that in the impugned
order it is mentioned that the development
authority took possession, which is not
correct. Be that as it may, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned
order in exercise of our discretion under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The
respondents are not bound to exempt the
land over which there are constructions.
That is their discretion, and it is an
administrative decision. As held in Tata
Cellular V. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC
11 this Court has a very limited scope of
interference in administrative decisions.
Whether to grant exemption or not
requires consideration of various factors
by the concerned authority. Some times
grant of exemption may disrupt the entire
scheme. At any event, it is not for this
court to interfere in such administrative
matters.

6. It may be mentioned that the
definition of land in Section 3 (a) of the
Land Acquisition Act states:

"(a)
the
expression'
land'
includes benefits to arise out of land
and, things attached to the earth or
permanently fastened to any thing
attached to the earth."

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Raju V. District Magistrate, Mathura and others
507
7. As held in Bai Malimabu v. State
of Gujrat AIR 1978 SC 515 and Kashi
Nath and others versus State of U.P. 1193
ALJ 154 the word land in section 3 (a)
includes the superstructures on the land.
This view has been reiterated in Manveer
Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2003 (i) AWC
116 and in Horam Singh V. State of U.P.
Writ petition no. 24627 of 2003 dismissed
on 2.7.2003. Thus the constructions on
the land in dispute are certainly land
within the meaning of Section 3 (a).

8. The matter has been dragging on
since 1980 and it is not proper for this
Court to interfere again and again. There
is no force in this petition. The writ
petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE U.S. TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE V.N. SINGH, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 44365 of
2002

Raju

...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate, Mathura and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh, S.S.C.
Sri P.K. Sharma
A.G.A.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Criminal
Law-detention
ordersatisfaction
of
detaining
authoritynature
of
incident
antecedents
and
apprehension of repeating tendency, are
relevant factors-indicate that petitioner
would again indulge in similar activitiesCompelling necessity before detaining
authority- petition dismissed.

Held- Para 16

Therefore, the previous as well as
subsequent conduct of the petitioner
indicated
that
he
was
indulged
in
realizing Chowth from the shopkeepers
and he who dared to oppose him and his
associates, he would be done to death.
These activities of the petitioner were
thus
sufficient
material
to
record
satisfaction of the detaining authority
that on release on bail the petitioner
would again indulge in similar activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order and thus there were compelling
necessary before the detaining authority
to pass the detention order.
Case laws discussed:
1990 SCC (Crl.) 372;
2000 (Suppl.) ACC 266
JT 1999 (8) SC 252;
1990 SCC 249;
1990 (27) SCC 67;
1998 SCC (Crl.) 178

(Delivered by Hon'ble U.S. Tripathi, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner for quashing his
detention order dated 12.7.2002, passed
by
District
Magistrate,
Mathura,
respondent no. 1, under Section 3 (2) of
National Security Act.

2. The petitioner was served with the
grounds of detention along with the order
of detention, which stated that on
28.4.2002
at
about
3.30
p.m.
the
petitioner along with his associates
Jamuna, Kanja and Jatwar armed with fire
arms came to the grocery shop of Pachan
Kumar Agarwal, situated at Mohalla
Hathi Darwaza Bazar, Goverdhan for
realizing Chowth. The petitioner and his
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in