# Prem Chand Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 455 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2004-04-15 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8070 of 2002 - **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-chand-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40402 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 300-A read with U.P. Rural Development (Requisition of land) Act, 1948-lands taken without following procedure http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 456 prescribed under law- No compensation paid since 1986- clear violation of Article 300-A direction issued either to restore possession of land to petitioners by forthwith or to pay full compensation as per Act within six months- Exemplarg cost of Rs. 2 lacs emposed payable to the claimed-Land Acquisition Act- Ss 23 (1A), 23 (2) In case after case which is coming up before us it has come to our knowledge that the land or other property of the citizens has been taken over by the State without following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act or any other Act. In our opinion this is wholly illegal being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution. The State is expected to act in an exemplary manner and should set a standard of exemplary behavior for others, but in these cases which have come up before us, the State has behaved like an outlaw and has illegally grabbed the property of citizens without following the procedure of the law. If this trend is permitted it will lead to collapse of the rule of law in our country. The time has come when these illegal activities of the State must be checked and it is the duty of the Court to do this, otherwise the Court will be failing to discharge its duty under the Constitution. Para 4 This writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the possession of the land of the petitioners to them forthwith. If the respondents do not restore the possession to the petitioner then full compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act must be paid to the petitioners within six months from today and this will be determined by the District Judge, Allahabad within four months from today. This compensation will include the full market value, additional solatium under Section 23 (1A), Solatium under Section 23 (2), as well as interest at the rate of 15% from the date the possession was taken over till the date of its actual payment. The respondents must also pay damages/cost to the petitioners for depriving them of their land for 18 long years and they must also pay exemplary costs. In addition to above amounts, the respondents must pay to the petitioners Rs. 2 lacs as exemplary costs which shall be distributed to each of the petitioners in accordance with the area of their land, which was taken over by the respondents. Para 5 ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Prem Chand Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others 455 inhere in the Constitution. They are due to the judges who interpret it. That document has ample resources for imaginative statesmanship." In Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 (vide para 1547) Khanna, J. observed: "In exercising the power of judicial review, the Court cannot be oblivious of the practical needs of the government. The door has to be left open for trial and error." 25. In Indian Railway Construction Co. Limited vs. Ajay Kumar (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1206 (vide para 14) the Supreme Court observed that there are three grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground is illegality, the second is irrationality and the third is procedural impropriety. These principles were highlighted by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service 1984 (3) All ER 935. The Supreme Court observed that the Court will be slow to interfere in such matters relating to administrative functions unless the decision is tainted by any vulnerability enumerated above, like illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The famous case, commonly known as the 'Wednesbury's case', is treated as the landmark in laying down various principles relating to judicial review of administrative or statutory discretion. 26. Lord Diplock explained irrationality as follows: "By irrationality I mean what can be now be succinctly referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness. It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its definance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it." 27. From the above standpoint the impugned decision of the administrative authorities in the present case (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) cannot be faulted as it cannot be said to be so outrageous in defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it. It has been stated therein that plot no. 881 is next to the main National Highway, and that adjacent plot nos. 883 and 884 are very important for the industrial area. These cannot be called arbitrary considerations. 28. Petition dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.4.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8070 of 2002 Prem Chand Singh and others ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners. Sri S.C. Mandhyan Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India, Article 300-A read with U.P. Rural Development (Requisition of land) Act, 1948-lands taken without following procedure http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 456 prescribed under law- No compensation paid since 1986- clear violation of Article 300-A direction issued either to restore possession of land to petitioners by forthwith or to pay full compensation as per Act within six months- Exemplarg cost of Rs. 2 lacs emposed payable to the claimed-Land Acquisition Act- Ss 23 (1A), 23 (2) In case after case which is coming up before us it has come to our knowledge that the land or other property of the citizens has been taken over by the State without following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act or any other Act. In our opinion this is wholly illegal being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution. The State is expected to act in an exemplary manner and should set a standard of exemplary behavior for others, but in these cases which have come up before us, the State has behaved like an outlaw and has illegally grabbed the property of citizens without following the procedure of the law. If this trend is permitted it will lead to collapse of the rule of law in our country. The time has come when these illegal activities of the State must be checked and it is the duty of the Court to do this, otherwise the Court will be failing to discharge its duty under the Constitution. Para 4 This writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the possession of the land of the petitioners to them forthwith. If the respondents do not restore the possession to the petitioner then full compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act must be paid to the petitioners within six months from today and this will be determined by the District Judge, Allahabad within four months from today. This compensation will include the full market value, additional solatium under Section 23 (1A), Solatium under Section 23 (2), as well as interest at the rate of 15% from the date the possession was taken over till the date of its actual payment. The respondents must also pay damages/cost to the petitioners for depriving them of their land for 18 long years and they must also pay exemplary costs. In addition to above amounts, the respondents must pay to the petitioners Rs. 2 lacs as exemplary costs which shall be distributed to each of the petitioners in accordance with the area of their land, which was taken over by the respondents. Para 5 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. It appears that the possession of the petitioners' land being Khasra No. 288, 248, 223 and 292 situated in village Raghunathpur, Tehsil Phoolpur, district Allahabad was taken over by the respondent in the year 1986 but as yet no compensation has been paid for the same. Also no notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued in respect of the same. No notification under the provisions of the U.P. Rural Development (Requisition of Land) Act, 1948 has been placed before us. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India states: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law". 3. In our opinion the word "law" under Article 300-A means statutory law and not a mere Government order. Therefore, Article 300-A means that no body's property can be even touched except in accordance with some procedure of a statute. It appears to us that the petitioners' land was forcibly occupied by the respondent-authorities without following the procedure of the http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Prem Chand Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others 457 Land Acquisition or any other statute. All that has been stated in para 9 of the counter affidavit is that the possession of the petitioner's land has been taken to build canal and proceeding for determination of compensation is being done. 4. In case after case which is coming up before us it has come to our knowledge that the land or other property of the citizens has been taken over by the State without following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act or any other Act. In our opinion this is wholly illegal being violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution. The State is expected to act in an exemplary manner and should set a standard of exemplary behavior for others, but in these cases which have come up before us, the State has behaved like an outlaw and has illegally grabbed the property of citizens without following the procedure of the law. If this trend is permitted it will lead to collapse of the rule of law in our country. The time has come when these illegal activities of the State must be checked and it is the duty of the Court to do this, otherwise the Court will be failing to discharge its duty under the Constitution. No doubt some times, some land may be required for some public purpose, and the State has power to acquire or requisition under its power of eminent domain, but this must be done in accordance with a statute. In all these cases which have dome before us, we find that the land has not been taken over 18 years ago without following any statutory procedure or paying compensation. It may be mentioned here that the question of payment of compensation arises, when the land is acquired after issuing notification under Sections 4 and 6 etc. of the Land Acquisition and thereafter the award is passed under Section 11 and compensation is paid after determining the market value in accordance with the legal procedure e.g. considering some exemplars etc. and paying solatium, interest, etc. as mentioned in the aforesaid Act. There is no question of compensation when the land is taken without following procedure of law. When such illegality is committed, ordinarily the Court is under duty to restore the possession to the owner and grant exemplary costs against on the State for its illegal acts. In the present case, 18 years have expired and the petitioners have been made to run hither and thither without receiving any compensation. The law has been totally violated and in fact no statutory provision has been followed before taking over possession of the petitioners' land. No citizen can feel safe is such acts are allowed. 5. This writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to restore the possession of the land of the petitioners to them forthwith. If the respondents do not restore the possession to the petitioner then full compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act must be paid to the petitioners within six months from today and this will be determined by the District Judge, Allahabad within four months from today. This compensation will include the full market value, additional solatium under Section 23 (1-A), Solatium under Section 23 (2), as well as interest at the rate of 15% from the date the possession was taken over till the date of its actual payment. The respondents must also pay damages/cost to the petitioners for depriving them of their land for 18 long years and they must also pay exemplary costs. In addition to above http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 458 amounts, the respondents must pay to the petitioners Rs. 2 lacs as exemplary costs which shall be distributed to each of the petitioners in accordance with the area of their land, which was taken over by the respondents. Petition Allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD. 28.1.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53894 of 2003 Sunita Diwedi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.N. Tripathi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D.K. Tripathi S.C. U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act 1990- Section 15 (3)- selected candidate from commission- despite of placement order of Director- management ignoring the selected candidate such state of affair- held most unfortunate-general mandamus issuedif the management fails to carriont the direction within 3 weeks- drastic action be taken against such management. In several cases, which are coming up before this court, we have found that the candidate selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission is not given appointment despite the placement order of the Director, Higher Education because for some reason the committee of management does not wish to appoint him. In our opinion, this is wholly illegal and the committee of management has to give appointment to the person selected by the Higher Education Public Service Commission, otherwise the very purpose of the selection is defeated. If the committee of management does not give appointment to the selected candidate, action must be taken against the management under Section 15 (3) of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1990 as well as Section 57/58 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973. Para 6 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission as well as learned standing counsel. 2. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner has been selected by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission as Lecturer in Hindi for Agra College, Agra. The recommendation of the Higher Education Service Commission dated 17.6.2003 is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 3. In pursuance of letter dated 17.6.2003, the petitioner submitted his joining before the Principal, Agra College, Agra who is also Secretary of the Managing Committee of the College on 24.7.2003, but she has not yet been allowed to join there. True copies of the joining reports are Annexure nos. 3 and 4. 4. We are distressed to note that although the recommendation, which is in favour of petitioner, was sent by the Commission to the Director, Higher Education, U.P in June 2003 the petitioner has not yet been allowed to join as Lecturer in Hindi in Agra College, Agra. College, Agra.