# Rahman Siddiqui v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 59
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-12-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8094 of 2001
- **Bench:** G.P. Mathur, A.C.J. Ashok Bhushan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahman-siddiqui-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40059
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 3 (b)-
writ petition at the instance of the
present petitioner Rehman Siddique is
not maintainable as neither he is owner
of the land, which had been acquired nor
he is a person interested within the
meaning of section 3(b) of the Act (Held
in para )

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Rahman Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others
59
respondent no. 2 that infirmity cannot be
done away with by declaring the selection
and appointment of only respondent no. 2
as illegal as even after such a declaration
the said illegality will exist in the case of
selection and appointment of other
candidates. The relief under Article 226
of the Constitution being discretionary
could be granted for removing the
illegality, if any, and not for perpetuating
it. In this case even after declaring the
selection and appointment of respondent
no. 2, as illegal some other candidates
having been selected and appointed in the
same manner will still continue in service
because of their not being made parties.
The grant of relief to the petitioner thus
will shake public faith in dispensation of
justice and also impair the credibility of
judicial system in the country. There is,
therefore, no justification for setting aside
the selection of respondent no. 2 only
when
some
similarly
selected
and
appointed candidates shall still continue
on their posts.

9. It is also worth while to point out
that the petitioner's name appears at 26th
position in the merit list of the candidates.
Fifteen candidates thus stand higher in
position to the petitioner. Even after
declaring the selection and appointment
of respondent no. 2 as illegal, it would be
quite unjust, unfair and improper to make
a direction for his appointment as a
consequence of vacancy created by
setting
aside
the
selection
and
appointment of respondent no. 2. The
candidates holding positions above the
petitioner in the merit list have not been
made parties and no order can legally be
passed against them either in the writ
petition or in the appeals in their absence.

10. True, the Apex Court in various
cases has expressed its concern over
increasing disregard and by-passing of
statutory rules in recruitment proceedings
and this case also appears to be one of
such cases but we are constrained to
observe that the petitioner having neither
impleaded necessary and proper parties
nor having come up with correct facts has
squarely to blame himself. To our mind,
therefore it was not a fit case for exercise
of extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

For the reasons stated above, we find
that the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.
17432 of 1999 cannot be sustained and
has to be set aside.

We, accordingly, find force in the
Special Appeal Nos. 1054 of 2001 and
1100 of 2001 and setting aside the order
impugned in these Special Appeals
dismiss the writ petition No. 17432 of
1999. The Special Appeal No. 1038 of
2001 being devoid of merit is, hereby,
dismissed.

In
view
of
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, we make no
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. MATHUR, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8094 of 2001

Rahman Siddiqui

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishnu Gupta
Sri R.O.V.S. Chauhan
Sri P.C. Srivastava
Sri V.K. Barman
Sri Pankaj Barman

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri U.K. Uniyal
Sri S.D. Kautilya
Sri B.B. Paul
S.C.

Land Acquisition Act 1894 Section 3 (b)-
writ petition at the instance of the
present petitioner Rehman Siddique is
not maintainable as neither he is owner
of the land, which had been acquired nor
he is a person interested within the
meaning of section 3(b) of the Act (Held
in para )

(Delivered by Hon'ble G.P. Mathur, ACJ)

This petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution has been filed praying that
the order dated 1.2.2001 of Collector,
Allahabad and the award dated 5.2.2001
of Special Land Acquisition Officer be
quashed. A further prayer has been made
that a writ of mandamus be issued
commanding
the
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer to pay compensation
on the basis of award dated 11.10.2000.

Some land situate in villages Shaha
alias Peepal Gawn, Jhalwa, Harwara,
Deoghat,
Pargana
Chail
District
Allahabad was acquired for a public
purpose namely for establishment of
residential
colony
under
a
planned
development scheme by the Allahabad
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred to as the Authority). The
notification under section 4 (1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) was published in
U.P. Gazette on 23.2.1991 and the
notification under section 6 of the Act
was
published
in
the
Gazette
on
31.12..1991. It was recited in both the
notifications that the Government was
satisfied that the case was one of urgency
and accordingly a direction was issued
under section 17 (1) of the Act to the
Collector, Allahabad to take possession of
the land mentioned in the schedule
appended to the notifications though no
award under section 11 had been made. In
view of the fact that section 17 of the Act
was made applicable, the landholders
were paid 80% of the estimated amount of
compensation before taking possession as
provided in sub-section (3-A of Section
17 of the Act. It appears that the award
was not made promptly and accordingly a
direction was issued on 1.5.2000 in writ
petition no. 17406 of 1994 to make an
award within three months. Thereafter,
the Special Land Acquisition Officer
made an award on 11.10.2000. The
Allahabad Development Authority was
thereafter asked to make payment of
compensation
to
the
landholders.
Thereafter the Secretary of the Allahabad
Development
Authority
moved
an
application
before
the
Collector,
Allahabad on 10.1.2001 for setting aside
and canceling the award dated 11.10.2000
as the same had been made without
issuing any notice and without giving any
opportunity
of
hearing
to
the
Development Authority. The Collector,
Allahabad by his order dated 1.2.2001 set
aside the award dated 11.10.2000 on the
ground that before making the award the
Special Land Acquisition Officer had not
given
any
notice
to
Allahabad
Development Authority and had not
afforded any opportunity of hearing to it.
Subsequent thereto, the Special Land
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Rahman Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others
61
Acquisition Officer made a fresh award
after hearing the parties on 5.2.2001.

Sri P.C. Srivastava learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned order dated 1.2.2001 was
passed by the Collector, Allahabad
without giving any opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and therefore the same is
illegal and is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel has further submitted
that the second award made on 5.2.2001
is also liable to be set aside as two awards
cannot be made for the same land and the
tenure-holders are entitled to be paid
compensation in accordance with the
earlier award dated 11.10.2000. Learned
counsel has also urged that notice had in
fact
been
given
to
the
Allahabad
Development Authority before making
the award dated 11.10.2000 by the Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer
and
the
Collector has erred in holding that the
said award was made without giving any
opportunity to it and therefore the order
dated 1.2.2001 cannot be sustained in law.

In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf
of
Allahabad
Development
Authority (sworn by Sri R.K. Pandey on
13.3.2001), it is specifically averred in
para 10 and 11 that the award dated
11.10.2000 was made ex parte against the
Allahabad Development Authority and it
was on this ground that an application
was
moved
before
the
Collector,
Allahabad on 10.1.2001 for setting aside
the ex parte award dated 11.10.2000 made
by the Special Land Acquisition. No
material has been placed on record to
show that before making the award, any
notice was ever issued to the Allahabad
Development
Authority
or
any
opportunity of hearing was given to it.
From the averments made in the affidavits
filed by the parties, we are satisfied that
the award dated 11.10.2000 was made
without giving any opportunity of hearing
to the Allahabad Development Authority.

Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the
Act provides that in any proceeding held
before the Collector or Court in such
cases the local authority or Company
concerned
may
appear
and
adduce
evidence for the purpose of determining
the amount of compensation. Section 3
(aa) of the Act defines "local authority"
and it includes a town planning authority
(by whatever name called) set up under
any law for the time being in force). The
Allahabad Development Authority has
been constituted in accordance with the
provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act and therefore it is a
'local authority' within the meaning of
Section 3 (aa) of the Act. The Allahabad
Development Authority was consequently
entitled to appear and adduce evidence
before the Collector before making of the
award. The Collector in the impugned
order dated 1.2.2001 has held that as the
opportunity of hearing was not given to
the Allahabad Development Authority
before
making
the
award
dated
11.10.2000, there was violation of section
50(2) of the Act and consequently the
award was liable to be set aside. In our
opinion, the view taken by the Collector is
perfectly correct and cannot be faulted on
any ground.

The ambit and scope of sub-section
(2) of Section 50 of the Act was examined
by a Constitution bench in U.P. Awas
Evam Vikas Parishad versus Gyan Devi
and another AIR 1995 SC 724 and it was
held as under :
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
"1. Section 50 (2) of the L.A. Act confer
on a local authority for whom land is
being acquired a right to appear in the
acquisition
proceedings
before
the
Collector and the reference Court and
adduce evidence for the purpose of
determining the amount of compensation.

2. The said right carries with it the
right to be given adequate notice by the
Collector as well as the reference Court
before whom acquisition proceedings are
pending of the date on which the matter of
determination of compensation will be
taken up.

3. That proviso to Section 50(2) only
precludes a local authority from seeking a
reference but it does not deprive the local
authority which feels aggrieved by the
determining
of
the
amount
of
compensation by the Collector or by the
reference Court to invoke the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution as
well as the remedies available under the
L.A. Act.

4. In the event of denial of the right
conferred by Section 50(2) on account of
failure of the Collector to serve notice of
the acquisition proceedings the local
authority can invoke the jurisdiction of
the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

5. Even when notice has been served on
the local authority the remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution would be
available to the local authority on
grounds on which judicial review is
permissible under Article 226.

6. ............."

In M/s Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd.,
versus
Special
Tahsildar
(Land
Acquisition), Neyvely and others (AIR
1995 SC 1004) a three Judge bench held
as follows:

"The beneficiary, i.e. Local authority
or company, a co-operative society
registered under the relevant Satee Law
or statutory authority is a person
interested to determine just and proper
compensation for the acquired land and is
an aggrieved person. The beneficiary has
the right to be heard by the Collector or
the Court. If the compensation is
enhanced it is entitled to canvass its
correctness by filing an appeal or defend
the award of the Collector. If it is not
made a party, it is entitled to seek leave of
the Court and file the appeal against the
enhanced award and decree of the Civil
Court under section 26 or of the judgment
and decree under section 54 or is entitled
to file writ petition under Article 226 and
assail its legality or correctness......."

In
view
of
these
authoritative
pronouncements, there can be no manner
of doubt that the Allahabad Development
Authority had a right to appear before the
Collector and adduce evidence and in
event of denial of such a right conferred
by section 50(2) on account of failure of
Special Land Acquisition Officer to serve
a notice, it could approach the Collector
for setting aside the award which was
made ex parte against it. The Collector
was,
therefore
perfectly
right
in
entertaining the application moved by the
Allahabad Development Authority on
10.1.2001 and in setting aside the award
dated 11.10.2000 as the same had been
made ex parte and without giving any
opportunity of hearing to it. The challenge
of the petitioner to the order dated
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Rahman Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and others
63
1.2.2001 of the Collector has, therefore
absolutely no merit and has to be
rejected.

By
way
of
an
amendment
application, the petitioner has also sought
quashing of the award dated 5.2.2001 and
a direction to the respondents to grant him
compensation,
as
per
judicial
determination dated 31.5.2002 in LAR
No. 10 of 2001 (Jagpat Versus State of
U.P.).

It is well settled that the award of the
Collector made under section 11 of the
Act is nothing more than an offer of
compensation made by the Government to
the claimant whose property is acquired.
(See Raja Harish Chancre versus Dy.
Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC
1500, DR. G.H. Grant versus State of
Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 237, Periyar and
Paree Kanni Rubbers versus State of
Kerala, AIR 1990 SC 2192.) Section 18
of the Act confers right upon a person
interested who has not accepted the award
to move an application to the Collector
for making a reference to the Court if he
feels aggrieved by the amount of
compensation awarded to him. Since the
Act itself provides a complete machinery
to a person interested for enhancement of
compensation by asking the Collector to
make a reference to the court, the award
made by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer on 5.2.2001 cannot be quashed at
the instance of a person interested in a
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

Sri B.B. Paul learned counsel for the
Allahabad Development Authority has
submitted that the writ petition at the
instance of the present petitioner Rehman
Siddique is not maintainable as neither he
is owner of the land, which had been
acquired nor he is a person interested
within the meaning of section 3 (b) of the
Act. Sri Paul has submitted that after the
award was made on 5.2.2001, notices
under section 12 of the Act were given to
all those persons whose names were
recorded over the acquired land. Learned
counsel has submitted the recorded tenure
holders of the acquired land having not
challenged the order of the Collector
dated 1.2.2001 and also the award dated
5.2.2001 of the special land acquisition
Officer,
the
writ
petition
is
not
maintainable.
In
Para
3
of
the
supplementary counter affidavit, (sworn
by Sri D.C. Misra on 9.9.2002), it is
averred that the petitioner Rehman
Siddique claims that he has got a power of
attorney from the recorded tenure holders
whose land had been acquired but the said
power of attorney has not been filed so
that the true picture may not be revealed.
When confronted with this statement
made in the supplementary affidavit, Sri
P.C. Srivastava learned counsel for the
petitioner has asserted that the petitioner
has got a power of attorney in his favour
from
the
recorded
tenure
holders.
However the said power of attorney was
not produced before us. It certainly
appears that the petitioner is not one of
the recorded tenure holders whose land
may have been acquired. For the purpose
of deciding the present writ petition, we
do not want to examine the question
whether the petitioner has a valid power
of attorney in his favour, which may
entitle him to contest the matter on behalf
of those persons who were owners of the
land and whose land had been acquired.
This question shall be examined when the
petitioner Rehman Siddique initiates any
other legal proceeding either for receiving
the balance amount of compensation or
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
takes any other step in accordance with
law for enhancement of the compensation.

Sri Srivastava has referred to Gram
Seva Mandal Versus Collector, Wardha
and others, (AIR 1975 SC 73) in support
of his submission that writ petition at the
instance of the present petitioner Rehman
Siddiqui is maintainable. In our opinion,
the
authority
cited
is
clearly
distinguishable on facts. Learned counsel
has also referred to a judgment of this
court in Agra Development Authority
versus special land Acquisition Officer
(2000(2) AWC 1065 ). This decision can
be of no assistance to the petitioner, as on
the material placed before the Court, it
was held that the development authority
had full knowledge of the pendency of
proceedings
for
determination
of
compensation.

For reasons mentioned above, we
find no merit in the writ petition, which is
hereby dismissed with cost.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 3.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P.SRIVASTAVA J.
THE HON'BLE M.P. SINGH,J.

Special Appeal No. 1278 of 2002.

M/S P.G.T. Components Private Ltd. and
others

 ...Appellants
Versus
The
Assistant
Provident
Fund
Commissioner & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri K.S. Ojha
Sri Chandra Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.L. Tripathi

Employees Provident funds and Misc.
Provisions
Act
1952-
Whether
the
provident fund Commissioner at the time
of deciding the Controversy act as
Tribunal or a Court held - at the most it
can be treated as tribunal.

High Court Rules - chapter 8 R. 5
Special Appeal - order passed by learned
Single Judge entertaining writ Petition
against
the
order
Passed
by
the
Provident Fund Commissioner- Special
Appeal held not maintainable

Held Para 6

In the aforesaid view of the matter the
appeal is clearly not maintainable. The
preliminary objection is sustainable in
law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Srivastava. J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants as well as the learned counsel
representing the respondent authorities.

2. A preliminary objection has been
raised by the learned counsel for the
respondents
challenging
the
maintainability of this appeal asserting
that the order, which was the subject
matter of the writ petition disposed of by
the learned Single Judge vide the
impugned order dated 26.10.2002, was an
order passed by a Tribunal, therefore, as
provided in Chapter VIII Rule-5 of the
Rules of the Court, no special appeal
could lie against such an order.

3. A perusal of the various
provisions of the Employees Provident
Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952
indicates that under the Scheme of the Act
the Provident Fund Commissioner while