# Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 10518 of 2013
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raghubir-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44316
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Section 4 - Publication of
preliminary notification and power of
officers
thereupon,
Section
6
-
Declaration that land is required for a
public purpose , Section 11- A - period
shall be which an award within made ,
Section
30(1)
-
Dispute
as
to
apportionment
,
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2)
- Land acquisition process under Act
No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have
lapsed in certain cases.

Writ
petition
filed
for
declaring
the
impugned notifications under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 to be invalid and to
quash the consequential award given by the
respondents - ground - entire proceedings
shall be deemed to have been lapsed in
terms
of
Section
11-A
of
the
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894
-
amount
of
compensation as determined under the
award has not been deposited in terms of
Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - consequential award also would be a
nullity as the petitioner, even though
having been dispossessed is entitled to
regain the possession - identical notification
- quashed by High Court - connected
petitions upheld by the Apex Court. (Para -
2,3)

HELD:- No material so as to establish that
the
amount
(compensation)
has
been
deposited in the Court and has been
disbursed to the petitioner under the award
dated 31st October, 2002 . Consequently,
the writ petition deserves to be allowed on
the short ground of the proceedings having
lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act. (Para -16)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

1 All. Raghubir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253
a reasonable rate of 7.5% p.a. and we find
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

9. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and decree
passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondentInsurance Company shall deposit the
amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from
the date of filing of the claim petition till
the amount is deposited. The amount
already deposited be deducted from the
amount to be deposited.

10. The Tribunal be sent this order so
that in future, it will remain vigilant while
considering motor accident claims for death
of a salaried person.

11. This Court is thankful to Sri Vijay
Prakash Mishra and Sri Saurabh Srivastava,
learned counsel for getting this old matter
disposed of during this pandemic.
----------
(2021)01ILR A253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN MEHROTRA, J.

Writ C No. 10518 of 2013

Raghubir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Akhilesh Tripathi, Sri Shiv Kant Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri G.P. Gupta, Sri Satyam Singh

(A) Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Section 4 - Publication of
preliminary notification and power of
officers
thereupon,
Section
6
-
Declaration that land is required for a
public purpose , Section 11- A - period
shall be which an award within made ,
Section
30(1)
-
Dispute
as
to
apportionment
,
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2)
- Land acquisition process under Act
No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have
lapsed in certain cases.

Writ
petition
filed
for
declaring
the
impugned notifications under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 to be invalid and to
quash the consequential award given by the
respondents - ground - entire proceedings
shall be deemed to have been lapsed in
terms
of
Section
11-A
of
the
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894
-
amount
of
compensation as determined under the
award has not been deposited in terms of
Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - consequential award also would be a
nullity as the petitioner, even though
having been dispossessed is entitled to
regain the possession - identical notification
- quashed by High Court - connected
petitions upheld by the Apex Court. (Para -
2,3)

HELD:- No material so as to establish that
the
amount
(compensation)
has
been
deposited in the Court and has been
disbursed to the petitioner under the award
dated 31st October, 2002 . Consequently,
the writ petition deserves to be allowed on
the short ground of the proceedings having
lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act. (Para -16)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Satendra Prasad Jain Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
AIR 1993 Volume 5 JT page-385

2. Delhi Development Authority Vs Sukhbir
Singh & ors , (2016) 16 SCC 258

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Singh, J. &
Hon'ble Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2
and 3 and Sri G.P. Gupta for the respondent
no.4.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying
for
declaring
the
impugned
notifications under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 to be invalid and to quash the
consequential
award
given
by
the
respondents on the ground that the
proceedings should be presumed to have
lapsed in terms of Section 11-A of the Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894
and
the
consequential award also would be a nullity
as the petitioner, even though having been
dispossessed in the year 2007 is entitled to
regain the possession as the very same
notification has been quashed by the High
Court
by
the
judgment
dated
8th
September, 2010 in Writ Petition No.
41522 of 2007 as well as other connected
petitions that has been upheld by the Apex
Court as the special leave petition filed
against the same has been dismissed on 2nd
May, 2007. Copy of the said judgments are
on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has invited the attention of the Court to the
averments made in the supplementary
affidavit and the supplementary rejoinder
affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner to
contend that not only the acquisition is
invalid on account of the aforesaid facts but
also in view of the provisions of Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The entire proceedings shall be deemed to
have been lapsed as the amount of
compensation as determined under the
award has not been deposited in terms of
Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.

4. Thus a two fold argument has been
advanced, firstly that the acquisition
proceedings have already lapsed and since
identical notification has been quashed, the
writ petition deserves to be allowed and
alternatively applying the provisions of
2013 Act, even if the acquisition subsists,
the same shall be deemed to have lapsed as
no compensation has been deposited,
keeping in view, the law laid down in the
case of Delhi Development Authority Vs.
Sukhbir Singh & Ors reported in (2016) 16
SCC 258.

5.

Replying
to
the
aforesaid
submissions, learned counsel for the state
and
the
learned
counsel
for
the
U.P.S.I.D.C. have both urged that the
petitioner cannot question the proceedings
of acquisition inasmuch as he had earlier
filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.
62263 of 2006 that was dismissed as
withdrawn and a restoration application
filed for restoring the said petition has also
been rejected. Attention has been invited to
the said orders dated 28.08.2008 and
29.04.2011.

6. Sri G.P. Gupta, further contends
that even assuming for the sake of
argument, that the possession was taken in
the year 2007, even though on facts he has
disputed
the
same
and
urged
that
possession had been taken on 23rd March,
1 All. Raghubir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
255
1990, then to even keeping in view the law
laid down in the case of Satendra Prasad
Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others AIR
1993 Volume 5 JT page-385, once the land
has been vested in the State free from all
encumbrances then the issue of lapse does
not arise and admittedly, the possession
having been taken and handed over to the
U.P.S.I.D.C., there is no occasion to grant
the relief of quashing the acquisition
proceedings or even otherwise interfering
with the same in any manner whatsoever.
He, therefore, submits that the acquisition
cannot be annulled at this stage looking to
the the facts of the case and consequently
the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have gone through the records
and the pleadings. We find that the
notification under Section 4 took place on
17th August, 1985 followed by the
notification under Section 6 on 30th of
March 1988. An award was delivered
thereafter and compensation was also
disbursed. The fact remains that the
petitioner
was
also
awarded
the
compensation who received the same, yet
since the respondents were of the opinion
that the acquisition has not resulted into the
fulfilment of the purpose, therefore, they
called upon the petitioner to refund the
compensation amount. Since, the petitioner
did not refund the amount a recovery
certificate was issued and on non payment
and non satisfaction of the said recovery
amount, the petitioner was also sent behind
bars and had to suffer civil imprisonment,
whereafter he refunded the amount.

8. The aforesaid peculiar fact has
been stated only with a view to point out
that this acquisition proceedings had been
intervened by a refund at the instance of the
state itself, where the petitioner had to
suffer imprisonment as well without there
being any de-notification of the acquisition
proceedings.

9. It so happened that the respondents
again proceeded with the acquisition
proceedings on the basis of the same
notification and delivered a fresh award on
31st October, 2002. It is evident that this
award came to be delivered with a finding
that possession had been taken on 23rd
March, 1990. It is this fact which has been
disputed by the petitioner contending that
the possession has been taken in the year
2007 and not in 1990 inasmuch as the
respondents themselves have admitted not
having utilized the land rather they had
compelled the petitioner to refund the
amount in the circumstances indicated
above.

10. The newly awarded amount under
the award dated 31st October, 2007,
admittedly has not been deposited in any
Court nor is it the case of the respondent
that
in
compliance
thereof
the
compensation has been disbursed to the
petitioner.
However,
Sri
G.P.
Gupta
submits that approximately, 95% of the
tenure
holders
have
received
the
compensation amount in relation to the
acquisition in question.

11. At this stage, it is relevant to
point out that the acquisition proceedings
were challenged by the Ram Avtar and
other co-tenure holders and these writ
petitions were finally allowed on 8th
September, 2010 holding that in view of
the lapse of the period between the
notifications
and
the
award,
the
provisions of Section 11(A) of the 1894
Act
were
clearly
attracted.
The
acquisition proceedings in respect of all
the petitioners therein were therefore
declared to have lapsed.
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. Against the aforesaid judgment of
the High Court the U.P. State Industrial
Corporation namely the 4th respondent
herein filed a special leave to appeal no.
7422 of 2011, and the appeal was
dismissed by the judgment dated 2nd May,
2011. The judgment also refers to a
consideration of the judgment in the case of
Satendra Prasad Jain and others (supra).

13. The position, therefore, that
emerges is that in respect of other tenure
holders the proceedings were treated to
have lapsed on the ground that possession
had not been taken under Section 11-A of
the Act.

14. The distinction which is sought to
be raised and pointed out in the present
case by the learned counsel for the
respondent is that in the instant case,
admittedly the possession had been taken in
the year 2007.

15. In our considered opinion,
even if it is assumed that taking over of
such
possession
disentitles
the
petitioner from any previous relief as
granted to similarly situated tenure
holders under the judgment referred to
hereinabove, the question still remains
as
to
whether
the
amount
of
compensation awarded under the award
dated 31st October, 2002 has been
deposited in terms of 1894 Act, before
the concerned court or not. This is
necessary inasmuch as as on date if the
acquisition
proceedings
against
the
petitioner have already taken place and
possession had been taken, the fact
remains that under sub Section 2 of
Section 24, the petitioner still has a
ground made out for interference if the
amount of compensation has not been
deposited before the court concerned.

16. On a perusal of the affidavits on
record and the averments that have been
made in the respective affidavits. There is
no material so as to establish that the
amount has been deposited in the Court
and has been disbursed to the petitioner
under the award dated 31st October,
2002. To the contrary, the supplementary
affidavit
filed
by
the
petitioner
categorically
states
that
after
the
judgment delivered by the Apex Court in
respect of other co-tenure holders as
referred to hereinabove, the name of the
respondent
no.4
has
already
been
expunged and that all the tenure holders
including the present petitioner has been
restored. The situation, therefore, that
emerges is that even if the petitioner had
been dispossessed in the year 2007, the
fact remains that his name has been
restored in the revenue records by the
respondent State authorities pursuant to
the judgment of the Apex Court in
relation to the same notification in
respect
of
other
co-tenure
holders.
However, no compensation has been
deposited before the court concerned.
Consequently, the writ petition deserves
to be allowed on the short ground of the
proceedings having lapsed in terms of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and the law
as explained by the Apex Court in the
Delhi
Development
Authority
case
(supra).

17. The writ petition, therefore, is
allowed and it is hereby declared that
acquisition of the land presently involved
in the instant case in relation to the
petitioner would be deemed to have
lapsed. It is open to the respondents to
take such steps as may be permissible in
law for the purpose of further proceeding
in the matter.
----------
1 All. M/s Bio Tech System Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
257
(2021)01ILR A257
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 13388 of 2020
Connected with
Writ C No. 12479 of 2020 & 12480 of 2020

M/s Bio Tech System ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mahabir Yadav, Sri Arun Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - maintainability of a writ
petition in contractual matters - no
absolute bar to the maintainability of
a writ petition in such matters -
discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, may
be refused in case of money claims
arising
out
of purely
contractual
obligations where there are serious
disputed questions of fact with regard
to the claims sought to be raised.
(Para - 17)

The principal relief sought is with regard to
certain claims for payment of contractual
amounts in terms of agreements said to have
been executed between the parties.(Para - 3)

HELD:- In the present case, the claims sought
to be set up by the petitioners have been
strongly disputed. The payments in respect of
which the petitioners have raised their claims
pertain
to
contractual
and
commercial
obligations, and the pleadings and the material
which are on record, do not in any manner
indicate that it is a public law remedy which the
petitioners are seeking to invoke so as to
persuade this Court to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction.(Para - 43)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited :-

1. M/s Lalloo Ji Rajiv Chandra & Sons Vs
Meladhikari Prayagraj Mela Authority & ors. ,
(2019) ADJ Online 0081

2. M/S Friscon Media Works Vs St.Of U.P. & 3
ors., Writ-C No. 8104 of 2020 decided on
05.03.2020

3. M/S Odyssey Computers through Marketing
Manager Sri Ajai Singh Vs St. Of U.P. & ors. ,
Miscellaneous bench No. 14618 of 2017 ,
decided on 07.07.2017

4. Radhakrishna Agarwal & ors. Vs St. of Bihar &
ors., (1977) 3 SCC 457

5. Premji Bhai Parmar & ors. Vs Delhi
Development Authority & ors., (1980) 2 SCC
129

6. Divisional Forest Officer Vs Bishwanath Tea
Company Ltd. , (1981) 3 SCC 238

7. L.I.C. Vs Escorts Ltd. & ors. , (1986) 1 SCC
264

8. Bareilly Development Authority & ors. Vs Ajay
Pal Singh & ors. , (1989) 2 SCC 116

9. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. &
ors.Vs Dolly Das , (1999) 4 SCC 450

10. Kerala State Electricity Board & ors. Vs
Kurien E. Kalathil & ors. , (2000) 6 SCC 293

11. State of U.P. & ors. vs Bridge & Roof Co.
(India) Ltd , (1996) 6 SCC 22