# Pawan Kumar & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 664
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-29
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 67047 of 2006
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pawan-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50580
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Land Acquisition Law - Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 17(1) & 48 - In
pursuance of the notification u/s 4,
possession of the land was taken by the
St. on 08.07.1976 and on the same date,
the same was handed over to U.P.S.I.D.C.
to develop the industrial plot - Possession
certificate also produced - Effect - Prayer
for denotifying the land u/s 48 was sought
- Permissibility - Scope of S. 48 explained
- Held, once the award has been passed
on taking possession u/s 16 of Act, 1894
the land vests in the St. and there is no
divesting the same - S. 48 of Act, 1894
itself does not give any right to original
tenure holder to compel the St. to
withdraw from acquisition. This Section
only enabling provision which enable the
St. to withdraw from acquisition when the
acquired
land
was
not
taking
into
possession but in the present case, the St.
as well as respondent no. 3 clearly St.d
that possession of the land was taken.
(Para 12, 14, 19 and 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
at liberty to recover any rent due against
the petitioners in accordance with law as
observed above.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 664
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2023

BEFORE

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

Writ-C No. 67047 of 2006

Pawan Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.D. Saunders, Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, Sri
Anoop Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Akhileshwar Singh, Sri Anuj
Srivastava, Sri Varad Nath, Sri Amit Saxena
(Sr. Adv.), Sri H.N. Singh (Sr. Adv.)

A. Land Acquisition Law - Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 17(1) & 48 - In
pursuance of the notification u/s 4,
possession of the land was taken by the
St. on 08.07.1976 and on the same date,
the same was handed over to U.P.S.I.D.C.
to develop the industrial plot - Possession
certificate also produced - Effect - Prayer
for denotifying the land u/s 48 was sought
- Permissibility - Scope of S. 48 explained
- Held, once the award has been passed
on taking possession u/s 16 of Act, 1894
the land vests in the St. and there is no
divesting the same - S. 48 of Act, 1894
itself does not give any right to original
tenure holder to compel the St. to
withdraw from acquisition. This Section
only enabling provision which enable the
St. to withdraw from acquisition when the
acquired
land
was
not
taking
into
possession but in the present case, the St.
as well as respondent no. 3 clearly St.d
that possession of the land was taken.
(Para 12, 14, 19 and 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sawaran Lata & ors. Vs St. of Har. & ors.;
2010(4) SCC 532

2. Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. & ors. Vs St. of
Raj. & ors.; MANU/SC/0795/2008

3. Kamal Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
MANU /UP/1457/2020

4. Dinesh Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2018 (5) ADJ 297

5. A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corp. Ltd. Vs
Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & ors; AIR 2011
SC 3558

6. Aflatoon & ors. Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi &
ors.; AIR 1974 SC 2077

7. Mahaveer Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2018(6) ADJ
529

8. Land and Building Department through
Secretary & ors. Vs Attro Devi & ors.;
Manu/SC/0621/2023

9. Indore Development Authority Vs Manohar
Lal & ors.; 2020(8) SCC 129

10. Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs
Moti Lal Agarwal; 2011 AIR SCW 2835

11. Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs M.D., Bhagwat;
1976(1) SCC 700

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Standing Counsel representing the State-
respondent, Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior
7 All. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
665
Advocate assisted by Sri Anuj Srivastava,
learned counsel representing the Uttar
Pradesh
State
Industrial
Development
Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
the U.P.S.I.D.C.) and Sri Amit Saxena,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Varad Nath, learned counsel for the
respondent no.5.

2. Present writ petition has been filed
by the petitioners for quashing the order
dated 14.09.2006 passed by the respondent
no.1 by which application of petitioner to
de-notify his acquired land in Gata No. 37,
39 and 41 total area 4.45 acre situated at
Village Alipur Bhood Shamli, Gajraula,
District J.P. Nagar was rejected on the
ground that the possession of the land has
already been taken in the year 1976 as well
as the petitioners further seeking direction
to respondent to denotify the aforesaid Gata
No. 37, 39 and 41.

The factual matrix of the case is
as follows:-

3 (a). The petitioners were the
tenure holder of Plot No.37, 39 and 41 of
area 4.45 acre situated in Village Alipur
Bhood Shamli, Gajraula, District- J.P.
Nagar.

3(b). State Government issued a
notification dated 14.10.1976 under Section
4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1894')
and also invoked urgency clause Section
17(1) of the 'Act, 1894'. By this
notification, apart from the other land,
portion of the land in Gata No.37, 39 and
41 area 4.45 acre was also proposed to be
acquired. This notification was followed by
another notification dated 15.10.1976 under
Section 6 of 'Act, 1894'. The award in the
aforesaid notification was also declared on
07.05.1989. The present petitioners also
received the compensation as declared by
award
dated
07.05.1985.
Thereafter
UPSIDC, who was the beneficiary of the
aforesaid notification has also challenged
the award dated 07.05.1985 before this
Court through Writ Petition No.18453 of
1986 on the ground that before passing the
award dated 07.05.1985, UPSIDC was not
heard. The aforesaid writ petition was
allowed vide dated 06.11.2009 and the
award dated 07.05.1985 was quashed and a
direction was made to pass the fresh award.
Thereafter in pursuance of the order dated
06.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.
18453 of 1986 a fresh award was passed on
07.10.2010 by which the amount of
compensation was reduced. It is also
pertinent to mention here that the order
dated 06.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition
No.18456 of 1986 as well as fresh award
dated 07.10.2010 were passed during the
pendency of present writ petition.

3(c). The acquired land, in
pursuance
of
the
notification
dated
15.10.1976 including the acquired land of
the petitioners, was allotted to M/s Sivallik
Cellulose Ltd. Company through lease deed
dated
20.11.1976
and
02.03.1977.
Thereafter impleadment application dated
02.04.2019 was filed by the M/s Sivallik
Cellulose Ltd. to implead it as respondent
no.5 which was allowed by this Court vide
order dated 01.05.2019 and was permitted
to be impleaded as respondent no.5.
Thereafter counter affidavit was also filed
on behalf of the respondent no.5.

4. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioners is that possession of their
acquired land was not taken by the
respondents and they are still in possession
over that land. State has not produced any
evidence despite order dated 12.09.2017 of
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this Court, showing that possession was
taken from him. The contention regarding
the possession of the petitioners over his
acquired land in Plot No.37, 39, 41 is based
on the report dated 21.01.2006 of District
Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar. Report
dated 21.01.2006 of District Magistrate,
Jyotiba Phule Nagar shows that Gata
No.37, 39, 41 are situated in boundary wall
and major part of this land is laying vacant
except Gata No.39 in which 12 rooms were
found. It appears that above report dated
21.01.2006 was submitted by the District
Magistrate,
Jyotiba
Phule
Nagar
to
Government of U.P. in pursuance of order
dated 16.09.2005 of this Court passed in
Writ Petition No. 61564 of 2015 on
receiving
the
representation
dated
31.05.2003 of petitioner to denotify his
land on the ground that possession was not
taken from him.

5. After receiving the report dated
21.01.2006 of District Magistrate, J.P.
Nagar representation of the petitioner dated
31.05.2003 was rejected by the impugned
order dated 14.09.2006 on the ground that
possession has already been taken by the
petitioners in the year 1976.

6. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, it was
stated that possession of the entire acquired
land including the land of the petitioners in
pursuance
of
the
notification
dated
15.10.1976 was taken over under Section 9
of the 'Act, 1894' on 08.07.1976 and
compensation has already been paid in
pursuance of the award, therefore the land
has been vested in the State and no
question of de-notification under Section
48 of the 'Act, 1894' arises and after taking
the aforesaid possession of the land same
was handed over to M/S Sivallika Cellulose
Ltd. (respondent no.4) because the same
was allotted to that company by UPSIDC.
M/s Shiwalika Cellulose Ltd. (respondent
no.4) had established paper mill on the
aforesaid acquired land allotted by the
U.P.S.I.D.C.

7. Respondent no.5 had also filed
counter affidavit and in its counter
affidavit, it was contended that the acquired
land was leased out to respondent no.4 for
90 years through two different lease deeds
dated 20.10.1976 and 02.03.1977 and
possession of the entire industrial plot
(acquired land) of an area 34.76 acres was
handed over by U.P.S.I.D.C. to respondent
no.5 on 08.07.1976 and after taking the
possession of the allotted land, it has
constructed boundary wall and made
several other constructions inside therein
and established factory in June, 1979. It
was further stated that report dated
21.06.2006 of the District Magistrate itself
contrary to possession certificate and lease
deeds executed in favour of respondent
no.5 by the U.P.S.I.D.C. and it was lastly
contended
by
respondent
no.5
that
acquisition proceeding has become final
and it cannot be challenged after the
substantial delay.

8. In support of his case, counsel for
the respondent no.5 has relied upon the
following judgements.

(i) 2010(4) SCC 532 (Sawaran
Lata and others vs State of Haryana and
others);

(ii)
MANU/SC/0795/2008
(Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. and others
vs State of Rajasthan and ors.)

(iii)
MANU
/UP/1457/2020
(Kamal Singh and ors vs State of U.P.
and ors);
7 All. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667

(iv) 2018 (5) ADJ 297 (Dinesh
Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and
others)

(v) AIR 2011 SC 3558 (A.P.
Industrial Infrastructure Corporation
Ltd. Vs Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao
and Ors).

(vi)
AIR
1974
SC
2077
(Aflatoon and others vs. Lt. Governor of
Delhi and other)

9. It is further submitted that once the
acquired land is vested in State by taking
the possession of the same, then same
cannot be divested. Therefore, the same
cannot be de-notified under Section 48 of
the Act, 1894. In support of his contention,
he relied upon the judgement of Mahaveer
vs. State of U.P. and others reported in
2018(6) ADJ 529.

10.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents also contended that large
chunk of land is acquired then the State
agency is not required to keep police force
to protect possession of the land taken after
process of acquisition is completed and in
support of his submission, learned counsel
for the respondents relied upon the
judgment
of
Land
and
Building
Department
through
Secretary
and
others vs Attro Devi and others reported
in Manu/SC/0621/2023.

11. After considering the rival
arguments as well as on perusal of record,
the sole question that arises here for
consideration is whether the possession of
the acquired land of the petitioner was
taken by the State or not.

12. From the record, it is clearly
established that notification under Sections
4 and 6 of the 'Act, 1894' issued on
14.10.1976 and 15.10.1976 respectively
and in pursuance of the above notification,
possession of the land was taken by the
State on 08.07.1976 and on the same date,
the same was handed over to U.P.S.I.D.C.
for
developing
industrial
plot.
From
possession
letter
dated
08.07.1976
produced by the State, it is established that
the possession of the land was taken on
08.07.1976 and the possession letter dated
08.07.1976 is sufficient proof of possession
as per Section 114(3) of Evidence Act
because same was duly executed in the
discharge of official duty and after taking
possession of the same, the entire acquired
land including the land of the present
petitioner having total area 34.76 acres was
leased out/ allotted to respondent no.5
through lease deeds dated 20.10.1976 and
02.03.1977. It is also undisputed that after
taking possession of the acquired land of an
area
34.76
acres,
respondent
no.4
constructed boundary wall and established
a factory over the allotted land. It is
admitted case of the petitioners that they
have
also
obtained
compensation
in
pursuance of the award dated 07.05.1985.
Though subsequently the award dated
07.05.1985 was quashed by this Court on
06.11.2009 in the Writ Petition No. 18453
of 1986 filed by the U.P.S.I.D.C. on
technical ground during the pendency of
the present writ petition and thereafter fresh
award was also made but this fact will not
give any benefit to the present petitioners
as question herein is possession of land in
dispute.

13. Although on the one hand, State
has established by producing the possession
certificate dated 08.07.1976 that possession
of the land was taken but on the other hand
petitioner could not dispute the above
certificate by producing any evidence that
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
possession was not taken from them on
08.07.1976. In the report dated 21.01.2006,
it is mentioned that acquired land of
petitioners is situated inside the boundary
wall of respondent no.5.

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority vs
Manohar Lal and others reported in
2020(8) SCC 129, wherein it clearly
observed in paragraph 366.7 that mode of
taking possession under 'Act, 1894' is by
drawing inquest report/ memorandum.
Once the award has been passed on taking
possession under Section 16 of Act, 1894
the land vests in the State and there is no
divesting the same. Once the land is vested
in the State after taking possession of the
same, then subsequent possession on the
part of original tenure holder is illegal and
same cannot be taken into account. The
relevant paragraph nos. 247 and 258 are
quoted herein below;

"247. The question which arises
whether there is any difference between
taking possession under the Act of 1894
and the expression "physical possession"
used in Section 24(2). As a matter of fact,
what was contemplated under the Act of
1894, by taking the possession meant only
physical possession of the land. Taking
over the possession under the Act of 2013
always amounted to taking over physical
possession of the land. When the State
Government acquires land and drawns up
a memorandum of taking possession, that
amounts to taking the physical possession
of the land. On the large chunk of property
or otherwise which is acquired, the
Government is not supposed to put some
other person or the police force in
possession to retain it and start cultivating
it till the land is used by it for the purpose
for which it has been acquired. The
Government is not supposed to start
residing or to physically occupy it once
possession has been taken by drawing the
inquest
proceedings
for
obtaining
possession thereof. Thereafter, if any
further retaining of land or any re-entry is
made on the land or someone starts
cultivation on the open land or starts
residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed to
be the trespasser on land which in
possession of the State. The possession of
trespasser always insures for the benefit of
the real owner that is the State Government
in the case.

258. Thus, it is apparent that
vesting is with possession and the statute
has provided under Sections 16 and 17 of
the Act of 1894 that once possession is
taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is an
indefeasible right and vesting is with
possession thereafter. The vesting specified
under section 16, takes place after various
steps, such as, notification under section 4,
declaration under section 6, notice under
section 9, award under section 11 and then
possession. The statutory provision of
vesting of property absolutely free from all
encumbrances has to be accorded full
effect. Not only the possession vests in the
State but all other encumbrances are also
removed forthwith. The title of the
landholder ceases and the state becomes
the absolute owner and in possession of the
property. Thereafter there is no control of
the land- owner over the property. He
cannot have any animus to take the
property and to control it. Even if he has
retained the possession or otherwise
trespassed upon it after possession has
been taken by the State, he is a trespasser
and such possession of trespasser ensures
for his benefit and on behalf of the owner of
contemplate divesting of the property from
the State as mentioned above."
7 All. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669

15. Similarly, in the case of Banda
Development Authority, Banda vs Moti
Lal Agarwal reported in 2011 AIR SCW
2835, it was observed in paragraphs 34 and
35 that no hard and fast rule can be laid
down as to what act would constitute taking
possession of the acquired land and if the
acquired land is vacant, the concerned State
authorities to go to the spot and prepare a
Panchnama showing delivery of possession
was sufficient for recording of finding that
actual possession of the entire land had
been taken. Utilisation of major portion of
the acquired land for the public purpose for
which it was acquired, is clearly indicative
of fact that actual possession of the
acquired land had been taken.

16. Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the
Banda Devleopment Authority (supra)
case are being quoted hereinbelow;

"34. The principles which can be
culled out from the above noted judgments
are:

i) No hard and fast rule can be
laid down as to what act would constitute
taking of possession of the acquired land.

ii) If the acquired land is vacant,
the act of the concerned State authority to
go to the spot and prepare a panchnama
will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to
constitute taking of possession.

iii) If crop is standing on the
acquired land or building/structure exists,
mere going on the spot by the concerned
authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for
taking possession. Ordinarily, in such
cases, the concerned authority will have to
give notice to the occupier of the
building/structure or the person who has
cultivated the land and take possession in
the presence of independent witnesses and
get their signatures on the panchnama. Of
course, refusal of the owner of the land or
building/structure may not lead to an
inference that the possession of the
acquired land has not been taken.

iv) If the acquisition is of a large
tract of land, it may not be possible for the
acquiring/designated authority to take
physical possession of each and every
parcel of the land and it will be sufficient
that symbolic possession is taken by
preparing appropriate document in the
presence of independent witnesses and
getting their signatures on such document.

v) If beneficiary of the acquisition
is an agency/instrumentality of the State
and 80% of the total compensation is
deposited in terms of Section 17(3A) and
substantial portion of the acquired land has
been
utilised
in
furtherance
of
the
particular public purpose, then the Court
may reasonably presume that possession of
the acquired land has been taken.

35. In the light of the above
discussion, we hold that the action of the
concerned State authorities to go to the
spot and prepare panchnama showing
delivery of possession was sufficient for
recording a finding that actual possession
of the entire acquired land had been taken
and handed over to the BDA. The
utilization of the major portion of the
acquired land for the public purpose for
which it was acquired is clearly indicative
of the fact that actual possession of the
acquired land had been taken by the BDA."

17. Similarly, in Balwant Narayan
Bhagde vs M.D., Bhagwat reported in
1976(1) SCC 700; wherein Court observed
in para 28 that the act of Tehsildar in going
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the spot and inspecting the land was
sufficient to constitute taking of possession.
Thereafter it would be open to the
government or commissioner to withdraw
from acquisition under Section 48-A of the
'Act 1894'. The para 28 of the aforesaid
judgement is quoted hereinbelow;

"28 HAGWATI, J. (concurring)
(for himself and Gupta, J.)- We agree with
the conclusion reached by our brother
Untwalia, J., as also with the reasoning on
which the conclusion is based. But we are
writing a separate judgment as we feel that
the discussion in the judgment of our
learned brother Untwalia, J., in regard to
delivery
of
'symbolical'
and
'actual'
possession under rules 35, 36, 95 and 96 of
Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure,
is not necessary for the disposal of the
present appeals and we do not wish to
subscribe to what has been said by our
learned brother Untwalia, J., in that
connection, nor do we wish to express our
assent with the discussion' of the various
authorities made by him in his judgment.
We think it is enough to state that when the
Government proceeds to take possession of
the land acquired by it under the Land
Acquistition Act, 1894, it must take actual
possession of the land, since all interests in
the land are sought to be acquired by it.
There can be no question of taking
'symbolical'
possession
in
the
sense
understood by judicial decisions under the
Code of Civil Procedure. Nor would
possession
merely
on
paper
be
enough. What the Act contemplates as a
necessary condition of vesting of the ]And
in the Government is the taking of actual
possession
of
the
land.
How
such
possession may be taken would depend on
the natureof the land. Such possession
would have to be taken as the natureof the
land admits of. There can be no hard and
fast rule laying down what act would be
sufficient to constitute taking of possession
of land. We should not, therefore, be taken
as laying down an absolute and inviolable
rule that merely going on the 'pot and
making a declaration by beat of drum or
otherwise would be sufficient to constitute
taking of possession of land in every case.
But here, in our opinion, since the land was
laying fallow and there was no crop on it at
the material time, the act of the Tehsildar
in going on the spot and inspecting the land
for the purpose of determining what part
was
waste
and
arable
and
should,
therefore, be taken possession of and
determining its extent, was sufficient to
constitute taking of possession. It appears
that the appellant was not present when
this was done by the Tehsildar, but the
presence of the owner or the occupant of
the land is not necessary to effectuate the
taking of possession. It is also not strictly
necessary as a matter of legal requirement
that notice should be given to the owner or
the occupant of the land that possession
would be taken at a particular time, though
it may be desirable where possible, to give
such notice before possession is taken by
the authorities, as that would eliminate the
possibility of any fraudulent or collusive
transaction of taking of mere paper
possession, without the occupant or the
owner ever coming to know of it."

18. In the present case, possession of
the acquired land was taken in 1976 as per
existing
procedure
which
was
also
approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, in view of above legal position,
the possession of the acquired land of the
petitioner
was
taken
on
08.07.1976
supported by possession certificate and
thereafter boundary wall was constructed
by respondent no.5 and established the
factory on the major part of the acquired
7 All. Parmanand Sirumal Tahalramani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
671
land, clearly proof that possession of the
acquired land was taken and the same was
also utilised by the beneficiary. Even report
of D.M., J.P. Nagar dated 21.01.2006 as
well as report dated 24.10.2017 of S.L.A.O.
annexed as Annexure-I of compliance
affidavit dated 14.12.2017 shows that
acquired land of petitioner is inside the
boundary wall of respondent no.5

19. In the present case, notification
dated 15.10.1976 was not challenged while
filing the present case and only prayer was
made that application of the petitioners for
denotifying his land under Section 48 of the
Act, 1894 may be considered.

20. Section 48 of Act, 1894 itself does
not give any right to original tenure holder
to compel the State to withdraw from
acquisition. This Section only enabling
provision which enable the State to
withdraw from acquisition when the
acquired
land
was
not
taking
into
possession but in the present case, the State
as well as respondent no.3 clearly stated
that possession of the land was taken and
the same was transferred to respondent no.5
for establishing a factory. Section 48 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is quoted
herein below;

"Section
48
Completion
of
acquisition
not
compulsory,
but
compensation to be awarded when not
completed.-

(1) Except in the case provided
for in section 36, the Government shall be
at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition
of any land of which possession has not
been taken.

(2) Whenever the government
withdraws from any such acquisition, the
Collector shall determine the amount of
compensation due for the damage suffered
by the owner in consequence of the notice
or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall
pay such amount to the person interested,
together with all costs reasonably incurred
by
him
in
the
prosecution
of
the
proceedings under this Act relating to the
said land.

(3) The provisions of Part III of
this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the
determination of the compensation payable
under this section."

21. The present petition is itself
barred by serious laches because the
petitioners have agitated the ground of
possession in the year 2006 though the land
was acquired in 1976 and possession was
also
taken
in
the
year
1976
and
subsequently leased out to respondent no.5
in the year 1976 and 1977.

22. In view of the fact, petitioner
could not make out any case for the
indulgence of this Court, therefore petition
fails and is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 671
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 6853 of 2023

Parmanand Sirumal Tahalramami
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Gantavya