# Pyare Lal and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 423
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-03-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9006 of 2003
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, R.N. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pyare-lal-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41064
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act Section 17-Land
acquisition for developing residential
colony Notification u/s 4 issued on
21.1.90-declaration under Section 6 on
31.12.91-on alleged urgency inquiry u/s
5D
dispense
with-stay
granted
by
District court on 7.4.92-dismissed on
24.7.2000-possession taken on 1.11.02
much
after
2
years-apparently
no
urgency
as
required
u/s
17-entire
acquisition
proceeding
automatically
laps.

Held: Para 6
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
The materials on record shows that even
after dismissal of the writ petition and
vacation of the stay order the possession
was not taken within two years and
award was not made even after that.
This plea of the respondents is not
acceptable that as soon as they knew of
the dismissal of the writ petition and
vacation
of
the
stay
order,
they
proceeded
further
to
acquisition
proceedings
and
took
possession
because the respondents were party to
the
aforesaid
writ
petition
and
knowledge of the dismissal of the
petition was to be presumed-against
them. The learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 has argued that since
the
urgency
clause
was
invoked,
therefore, there was no need for award
and from the date of possession, the land
in dispute vested absolutely in the
Government free from all encumbrances.
But this argument is not acceptable
because under Section 17(1) of the Act
the possession was to be taken after
expiry of 15 days from the date of
publication of notice under Section 9(1)
of the Act showing urgency but since the
alleged possession was taken much after
two years of the dismissal of the writ
petition, therefore, this argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioners has
force that there was no urgency.
Case law discussed:
2007 (5) Supreme 25, 2007 (5) SCC 231, 2007
(5) SCC 85

## Text

2 All] Pyare Lal and others V. State of U.P. and others
423
recognized
under
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act are governed by the
Regulations 100 to 107 of Chapter III
framed under the said Act. Therefore
despite Rule-2 of said Rules have
overriding effect upon other service rules
even then such overriding effect of the
said Rules in my considered opinion, is
confined to only those Rules which have
been framed by the Governor of the State
under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, they cannot travel
beyond the aforesaid rule making power
of the Governor. Accordingly I am of the
view that Rules-2006 has no application
in case of recruitment of the petitioners on
Class IV posts or Group D posts of the
institution in question. The view taken by
D.I.O.S. contrary to it is misplaced and
cannot be countenanced.

9. In view of these facts and
circumstances of the case, impugned
order passed by District Inspector of
Schools recalling earlier permissiongranted by D.I.O.S. dated 4.5.2006, in my
considered opinion, is wholly erroneous,
misconceived and cannot be sustained,
therefore, the same is hereby quashed.

10. Since there is nothing from the
impugned order that the selection made
by the institution has been found faulty
otherwise by D.I.O.S. except the ground
stated herein before, therefore, the District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Allahabad
is
directed to accord approval to the
appointment of petitioners and make
payment of salary to them within a period
of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of the order
passed by this court before him, if they
are found working in pursuance of their
appointments. However the payment shall
be made from the date of approval of their
appointments and not earlier to it.

11. With the aforesaid observation
and direction, writ petition succeeds and
allowed.

12. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.03.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9006 of 2003

Pyare Lal and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri W.H. Khan
Sri J.H. Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Mishra
Sri S.K. Garg
S.C.

Land Acquisition Act Section 17-Land
acquisition for developing residential
colony Notification u/s 4 issued on
21.1.90-declaration under Section 6 on
31.12.91-on alleged urgency inquiry u/s
5D
dispense
with-stay
granted
by
District court on 7.4.92-dismissed on
24.7.2000-possession taken on 1.11.02
much
after
2
years-apparently
no
urgency
as
required
u/s
17-entire
acquisition
proceeding
automatically
laps.

Held: Para 6
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
The materials on record shows that even
after dismissal of the writ petition and
vacation of the stay order the possession
was not taken within two years and
award was not made even after that.
This plea of the respondents is not
acceptable that as soon as they knew of
the dismissal of the writ petition and
vacation
of
the
stay
order,
they
proceeded
further
to
acquisition
proceedings
and
took
possession
because the respondents were party to
the
aforesaid
writ
petition
and
knowledge of the dismissal of the
petition was to be presumed-against
them. The learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 has argued that since
the
urgency
clause
was
invoked,
therefore, there was no need for award
and from the date of possession, the land
in dispute vested absolutely in the
Government free from all encumbrances.
But this argument is not acceptable
because under Section 17(1) of the Act
the possession was to be taken after
expiry of 15 days from the date of
publication of notice under Section 9(1)
of the Act showing urgency but since the
alleged possession was taken much after
two years of the dismissal of the writ
petition, therefore, this argument of the
learned counsel for the petitioners has
force that there was no urgency.
Case law discussed:
2007 (5) Supreme 25, 2007 (5) SCC 231, 2007
(5) SCC 85

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.N. Misra, J.)

1. This writ petitioners has been
filed by the petitioners for issuance of
writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus declaring the land acquisition
proceedings in respect of plots in dispute
to have lapsed under Section 11A of the
Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred
to as the Act). They have further prayed
for the relief from their dispossession over
the land. In the alternative they have taken
shelter of Section 48 of the Act.
2. We have heard Shri W.H. Khan,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
J.H. Khan, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents no. 1 and 3 and Shri A.K.
Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 2.

3. Admittedly, the plot nos. 115 and
8 and plot nos. 98, 163, 12, 14, 90, 101
and 102 situate in village Jhalwa tehsil
sadar district Allahabad belonged to the
petitioners no. 1 to 3 respectively. The
respondents proposed to acquire the said
plots for the construction of residential
colony and notification under Section 4 of
the Act was issued on 21.1.1990.
Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of
the Act was issued on 31.12.1991. The
copies of the aforesaid notifications are
annexures 1 and 2 respectively. By way of
notification under Section 6 of the Act,
the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act
was dispensed with alleging the urgency.
The petitioners filed civil misc. writ
petition no. 13700 of 1992 in which the
interim order dated 7.4.1992 was passed
by this Court restraining the respondents
not to dispossess the petitioners from the
disputed plots unless they had already
been dispossessed. The copy of the order
is annexure-3. The petitioners' houses are
situate in plot no.163 since 1992, plot
no.90 since 1980 and plot no.115 since
1982.
The
petitioners
are
still
in
possessions of the disputed plots and they
were
never
dispossessed
by
the
respondents. The aforesaid writ petition
was
dismissed
on
24.7.2000
being
infructuous by passage of time and
accordingly the interim order dated
7.4.1992 also stood vacated. The copy of
the order is annexure-4. In the writ
petition, it has been alleged that the
petitioners were never dispossessed by the
respondents and they are still continuing
2 All] Pyare Lal and others V. State of U.P. and others
425
in possession. No award has been made
by the Collector Allahabad as yet and no
compensation has been paid to them.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by
one Dinesh Mishra, Law Inspector,
Allahabad
Development
Authority,
Allahabad, it has been alleged that the
possession of the land was taken by
Collector on 1.11.2002 and on the same
day possession was handed over to the
respondents no.2. However, it has been
alleged in the counter affidavit that the
award has not yet been made. The
acquisition has already become final
against the petitioners and writ petition
challenging
the
notification
under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have already
been upheld, therefore, this writ petition is
not maintainable. It has also been alleged
in
the
counter
affidavit
that
the
respondents had no knowledge about the
dismissal of the earlier writ petition filed
by the petitioners on 24.7.2000. Along
with the counter affidavit, the possession
memo annexure CA-1 has been filed.

5. 'This is admitted fact that the
petitioners had challenged the notification
under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in
respect of the plots in dispute by filing
civil misc. writ petition no. 13700 of
1992, in which interim order regarding
dispossession was passed on 7.4.1992 and
the said writ petition was dismissed on
24.7.2000 and the stay granted earlier was
vacated. The possession memo annexureCA-1 shows that the possession was
allegedly taken on 1.11.2002, meaning
thereby much after two years of dismissal
of the writ petition in which the stay had
been granted. Thus, apparently there was
no urgency as required under Section 17
of the Act. The award has not yet been
made, this is also admitted position. Thus,
it is also clear that the period of much
more than two years have passed and the
Collector has not made any award
regarding the disputed plots. Therefore,
under the provisions of Section 11A of
the Act, the entire acquisition proceedings
automatically lapsed. For ready reference
Section 11A is quoted below:-

"Period within which an award
shall be made-The Collector shall make
an award under Section 11 within a
period of two years from the date of the
publication of the declaration and if no
award is made within that period, the
entire proceedings for the acquisition of
the land shall lapse.

Provided that in a case where the
said declaration has been published
before the commencement of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68
of 1984), the award shall be made
within a period of two years from such
commencement".

6. The materials on record shows
that even after dismissal of the writ
petition and vacation of the stay order the
possession was not taken within two years
and award was not made even after that.
This plea of the respondents is not
acceptable that as soon as they knew of
the dismissal of the writ petition and
vacation of the stay order, they proceeded
further to acquisition proceedings and
took possession because the respondents
were party to the aforesaid writ petition
and knowledge of the dismissal of the
petition was to be presumed-against them.
The learned counsel for the respondent
no. 2 has argued that since the urgency
clause was invoked, therefore, there was
no need for award and from the date of
possession, the land in dispute vested
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
absolutely in the Government free from
all encumbrances. But this argument is
not acceptable because under Section
17(1) of the Act the possession was to be
taken after expiry of 15 days from the
date of publication of notice under
Section 9(1) of the Act showing urgency
but since the alleged possession was taken
much after two years of the dismissal of
the writ petition, therefore, this argument
of the learned counsel for the petitioners
has force that there was no urgency.

7. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has cited 2007 (5) Supreme 25
M/s Girnar Traders Vs. State of &
Others in which the three judges Bench of
the Apex Court has clearly held that if the
land is not acquired within the stipulated
period and award is not made within two
years from the date of declaration under
Section 6 the Act, the entire acquisition
proceedings come to an end. He has
further cited the case of Ravi Khullar and
another Vs. Union of India & Others
2007 (5) SCC 231 in which the Apex
Court has opined that the provisions of
Section 12 of the Limitation Act cannot
be read with Section 11A of the Act. Only
that period has to be excluded from the
stipulated time under Section 11A of the
Act for which the proceedings were
stayed by any competent Court. In the
case of Kunwar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.
P. and others 2007 (5) SCC 85 the same
view has been taken that if the award is
made after expiry of the limitation period
under Section 11A of the Act, the entire
acquisition proceedings would be lapsed.

8. In view of our above discussions,
we come to the conclusion that the entire
acquisition proceedings in this case have
lapsed in respect of plots in dispute and
consequently this writ petition is allowed
accordingly.

No order as to cost.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.03.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 3118 of
2008

Amit Yadav

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Shrawan Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Negotiable Instrument Act Section 138
(A)-Complaint neither signed by the
Payee-but her power of attorney holdereven the statement u/s 200 and 202
recorded of the husband of payeesummoning order-set a side-with liberty
to the Magistrate to take appropriate
decision
after
examining
the
complainant.

Held: Para 7

The next submission, however, of the
applicant was that the complaint in the
present case was signed not by the
payee i.e. Smt. Urmila Devi, but by the
power of attorney holder Harsingh Pal
her husband. He has drawn my attention
to
section
142
of
the
Negotiable
Instruments Act, wherein it is mentioned
in clause (a) that no Court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable
under
section
138
except
upon
a
complaint, in writing, made by the payee
or, as the case may be, the holder in due