# Raj Kishore & others v. The Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur & others

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 266
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-04-16
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kishore-others-v-the-commissioner-gorakhpur-division-gorakhpur-others-39892
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
266
complied by the respondents. Issue notice
to the respondents.

Sri V.K. Upadhdyaya has accepted
notice on behalf of respondents.

Sri Y.C. Simhadri, Vice Chancellor,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and
Sri
V.V.
Menon,
Controller
of
Examination, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi
and
Sri
P.C.
Upadhyaya,
Registrar, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi are directed to file counter
affidavit within two weeks and they shall
be personally present in the court on
16.4.2001.

List this case on 16.4.2001 before
appropriate bench.

Office is directed to place the record
of this Contempt Application within one
week from today before Hon'ble the Chief
Justice for nominating appropriate bench.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21
%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21
%/( 6. -$,1 -
7+( +21
%/( 6. -$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DM .LVKRUH DQG RWKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
7KH &RPPLVVLRQHU *RUDNKSXU 'LYLVLRQ
*RUDNKSXU DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL $. 0LVUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

83
=DPLQGDUL
$EROLWLRQ
$QG
/DQG
5HIRUPV $FW 6V DQG UHDG ZLWK
1RUWKHUQ ,QGLD )HUULHV $FW 6
3HWLWLRQHUV FODLPLQJ RZQHUVKLS RI IHUU\
DQG ULJKW WR UHDOLVH WROO RQ WKH IHUU\ LQ
TXHVWLRQ 1RWLILFDWLRQ LVVXHG XQGHU 6V
DQG RI =$ $FW YHVWLQJ IHUULHV LQ WKH
6WDWH
3HWLWLRQHUV
IDLOLQJ
WR
SURYH
RZQHUVKLS
RYHU
WKH
IHUU\
3HWLWLRQ
GLVPLVVHG
+HOG 3DUDV DQG
&RS\
RI
WKH
RUGHU
GDWHG

SDVVHG E\ WKH 'LVWULFW /DQG 5HIRUPV
2IILFHU 'HRULD ILOHG DV $QQH[XUH RI
WKH ZULW SHWLWLRQ LV DQ LQFRPSOHWH FRS\
,W LV DOVR QRW FHUWLILHG FRS\ RI WKH VDLG
RUGHU $ UHDGLQJ RI WKH RUGHU VKRZV WKDW
6DEKDSDWL
RI
WKH
*UDP
3DQFKD\DW
%DLNXQWKSXU
KDG
JLYHQ
VRPH
UHSRUW
DJDLQVW %KXMDZDQ DQG RWKHUV UHJDUGLQJ
PDQDJHPHQW RI WKH %DLNXQWKSXU *KDW
7KH RUGHU UHFLWHV WKDW
H[LVWLQJ ULJKWV RI
WKH FRQWUDFWRUV RI IHUULHV ZLOO FRQWLQXH
DFFRUGLQJ WR SDUDJUDSK I RI 5HYHQXH
$ 'HSDUWPHQW *2 1R $
 GDWHG 0DUFK DQG WKH
H[LVWLQJ
FRQWUDFWRU
ZLOO
FRQWLQXH

7RZDUGV WKH ERWWRP RI WKH RUGHU WKHUH
LV DQ HQGRUVHPHQW FRS\ IRUZDUGHG WR
WKH H[LVWLQJ FRQWUDFWRU 6UL %KXMDZDQ WR
GHSRVLW GXH DPRXQW LQ WUHDVXU\ DW RQFH
7KLV RUGHU VKRZV WKDW %KXMDZDQ ZDV
ZRUNLQJ LQ WKH FDSDFLW\ RI D FRQWUDFWRU
DQG LW GRHV QRW DW DOO HVWDEOLVK DQ\
SURSULHWDU\ ULJKW RI %KXMDZDQ RYHU WKH
IHUU\ 7KH GLUHFWLRQ LQ WKH RUGHU WR WKH
HIIHFW WKDW FRQWUDFWRU %KXMDZDQ VKRXOG
GHSRVLW WKH DPRXQW FRPSOHWHO\ QHJDWLYHV
WKH FDVH RI WKH SHWLWLRQHUV WKDW WKH\ KDG
DQ\ NLQG RI RZQHUVKLS ULJKW RYHU WKH
IHUU\
7KH QRWLILFDWLRQ XQGHU VHFWLRQ ZDV
LVVXHG RQ -XO\ 7KHUHDIWHU DOO
ULJKWV
WLWOH
DQG
LQWHUHVW
RI
DOO
WKH
LQWHUPHGLDULHV LQ HYHU\ HVWDWH LQ VXFK
DUHD LQFOXGLQJ IHUULHV FHDVHG DQG YHVWHG
LQ
WKH
6WDWH
RI
83
IUHH
IURP
DOO
HQFXPEUDQFHV )HUU\ LV D SDVVDJH RYHU
ZDWHU E\ ERDW DQG LV D FRQWLQXDWLRQ RI
WKH KLJK ZD\ IURP RQH VLGH RI WKH ZDWHU
2All] Raj Kishore & others V. The Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur & others 267
RYHU ZKLFK LW SDVVHV WR WKH RWKHU 7KH
IHUU\ LV D
ULJKW WR NHHS D ERDW IRU WKH
FDUU\LQJ RI SHUVRQV RU WKHLU EHORQJLQJV LQ
FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI D UHDVRQDEOH WROO ,W LV
UHIHUUHG DV D OLQN EHWZHHQ WZR KLJK ZD\V
RQ HLWKHU VLGH RI WKH ULYHU ,I IHUU\ ZDV
SDUW
RI
WKH
=DPLQGDUL
RI
WKH
LQWHUPHGLDU\ LW YHVWHG ZLWK WKH 6WDWH RQ
-XO\
+DYLQJ FRQVLGHUHG WKH VXEPLVVLRQ RI WKH
OHDUQHG FRXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHUV DQG
WKH PDWHULDO RQ UHFRUG ZH DUH VDWLVILHG
WKDW
WKH
SHWLWLRQHUV
KDYH
IDLOHG
WR
HVWDEOLVK
DQ\
WLWOH
RYHU
WKH
IHUU\
LQ
TXHVWLRQ LQYLWLQJ WHQGHUV IRU JLYLQJ WKH
ULJKW WR FROOHFW WROOV RQ WKH VDPH

By the Court

1. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D.
Deoria issued an advertisement inviting
tenders upto 28.2.2001 for letting out the
right to realise tolls on Baikunthpur Ghat
on Chhotigandak river. The present writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution has been filed for quashing
of the aforesaid tender notice.

2. The seven petitioners claim that
they are mallah/nishad by caste and have
been
running
a
ferry
from
time
immemorial over the aforesaid ghat. They
further claim that Baikunthpur Ghat was
being managed by the fore-fathers of the
petitioners from ages and their families
are depended upon the same. In support of
their claim, the petitioners rely upon
Khatauni of 1359- Fasli of Village
Baikunthpur where the name of Bhujawan
and others were recorded over Khata no.
270. It is averred in the writ petition that
the
petitioners
are
descendants
of
Bhujawan. The petitioners further rely
upon an order dated 18.9.1953 passed by
the District Land Reforms Officer, Deoria
and
according
to
them
this
order
recognises the right of Bhujawan to run a
ferry. The contention of the petitioners is
that the ownership of the ferry vests with
them and as such the State has got no
right to interfere in their management and
to let out the right to collect tolls on the
said ferry.

3. Copy of the order dated 18.9.1953
passed by the District Land Reforms
Officer, Deoria (filed as Annexure-2 to
the writ petition) is an incomplete copy. It
is also not certified copy of the said order.
A reading of the order shows that
Sabhapati
of
the
Gram
Panchayat,
Baikunthpur had given some report
against Bhujawan and others regarding
management of the Baikunthpur Ghat.
The order recites that 'existing rights of
the contractors of the ferries will continue
according to paragraph 8(f) of Revenue
(A) Department G.O. No. 1301-I-A/4501950 dated March 20, 1952 and the
existing
contractor
will
continue'.
Towards the bottom of the order, there is
an endorsement- copy forwarded to the
existing contractor Sri Bhujawan to
deposit due amount in treasury at once.
This order shows that Bhujawan was
working in the capacity of a contractor
and it does not at all establish any
proprietary right of Bhujawan over the
ferry. The direction in the order to the
effect that contractor Bhujawan should
deposit the amount completely negatives
the case of the petitioners that they had
any kind of ownership right over the
ferry.

4. Section 6 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) gives
consequences of the vesting of an estate
in the State and relevant part of this
section is being reproduced below:
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
268
" Consequences of the vesting of
an estate in the State- when the
notification under section 4 has been
published
in
the
Gazette,
then,
notwithstanding anything contained in
any contract or document or in any other
law for the time being in force and save as
otherwise provided in this Act, the
consequences as hereafter set forth shall,
from the beginning of the date of vesting,
ensure for area to which the notification
releases, namely:
(a) all rights title and interest of all
the intermediaries-

(i) in every estate in such area
including land (cultivable or bareen),
grove-land, forests whether within or
outside village boundaries, trees ( other
than trees in village abadi, holding or
grove), fisheries, tanks, ponds, waterchannels, ferries, Pathways, abadi sites,
hats, bazars and melas held upon land to
which clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1)
of Section 18 apply) and,

(ii) in all sub-soils in such estates
including rights, if any, in mines and
minerals, whether being worked or not,

shall cease and be vested in the State
of
Uttar
Pradesh
free
from
all
encumbrances"

The notification under section 4 was
issued on July 1, 1952. Thereafter all
rights, title and interest of all the
intermediaries in every estate in such area
including ferries ceased and vested in the
State of U.P. free from all encumbrances.
Ferry is a passage over water by boat and
is a continuation of the high way from one
side of the water over which it passes to
the other. The ferry is a right to keep a
boat for the carriage of persons or their
belongings
in
consideration
of
a
reasonable toll. It is referred as a link
between two highways on either side of
the river. If ferry was part of the
zamindari of the internmediary, it vested
with the State on July 1, 1952.

5. Learned counsel has contended
that section 4 of Northern India Ferries
Act, 1878 contemplates a public ferry and
a private ferry and the State has no right
to let out the right to collect tolls on
private ferry. Section 4 (b) of this Act no
doubt
gives
power
to
the
State
Government to take possession of private
ferry and to declare it to be a public ferry.
However it may be noticed that this Act
was enacted in 1873 and as the preamble
of the Act shows the object of the Act is
to regulate ferries in Northern India. The
U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act
was enacted in 1950 and the vesting as
contemplated by section 4 of the said Act
took place on July 1, 1952. The Northern
India Ferries Act can be of no assistance
to the petitioners for the purpose of
establishing their title over the ferry in
dispute in view of the vesting of the ferry
with the State under section 6 of the Act.

6. Having considered the submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the material on record, we are
satisfied that the petitioners have failed to
establish any title over the ferry in
question and therefore they cannot object
to the advertisement issued inviting
tenders for giving the right to collect tolls
on the same.

The writ petition lacks merits and is
hereby
dismissed
summarily
at
the
admission stage.
2All] Babu Singh V. XIII Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and another
269
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
%DEX 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
;,,, $GGO 'LVWULFW -XGJH .DQSXU 1DJDU
DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 9LQRG 0LVKUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6UL 5. 6D[HQD

83
8UEDQ
%XLOGLQJV
5HJXODWLRQ
RI
OHWWLQJ 5HQW DQG (YLFWLRQ $FW 6
 D DQG E $PELW DQG 6FRSH
5HOHDVH DSSOLFDWLRQ %RQDILGH QHHG
+HOG 3DUD DQG
$ ODZ\HU FDQQRW VHW XS KLV SUDFWLFH
XQOHVV KH KDV D FKDPEHU ZLWK RIILFH DQG
WKH SHRSOH LQ JHQHUDO NQRZ SODFH RI KLV
DYDLODELOLW\ ,Q DQ\ FDVH DV VDLG DERYH
WKH WHQDQW FDQQRW GLFWDWH WKDW WKH ODQG
ORUG PD\ KDYH KLV RIILFH RQ WKH URRI RI
WKH JDUDJH
6R IDU DV WKH UHOHDVH DSSOLFDWLRQ XQGHU
FODXVH E RI VXEVHFWLRQ RI 6HFWLRQ
 RI WKH $FW LV FRQFHUQHG WKH ORZHU
DSSHOODWH
FRXUW
KDV
DSSUDLVHG
WKH
RSLQLRQ RI WKH (QJLQHHU DQG WKH UHSRUW RI
WKH
$GYRFDWH
&RPPLVVLRQHU
DQG
KDV
UHFRUGHG
D
ILQGLQJ
RI
IDFW
WKDW
WKH
DFFRPPRGDWLRQ
LQ
RFFXSDWLRQ
RI
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU DV ZHOO DV RWKHU WZR WHQDQWV LV
LQ GLODSLGDWHG FRQGLWLRQ DQG LV UHTXLUHG
WR EH GHPROLVKHG IRU UHFRQVWUXFWLRQ 7KH
ODQGORUG KDV IXOILOOHG DOO WKH FRQGLWLRQV
UHTXLUHG
IRU
UHOHDVH
RI
WKH
DFFRPPRGDWLRQ XQGHU FODXVH E WKH
ILQGLQJ UHFRUGHG E\ WKH ORZHU DSSHOODWH
FRXUW FDQQRW EH IDXOWHG RQ DQ\ JURXQG

By the Court

1. The dispute relates to premises no
107/268 Brahma Nagar, Kanpur. Rudra
Sen
Bajpai-respondent
no.
2
had
purchased the said house in the year 1977
from one Smt. Rani Devi. The house
consisted
of
two
Kotharies
and
a
Khaprail. One of the Kotharies was under
the tenancy of Smt. Siromani Devi and
the other was under the tenancy of late
Dev Singh and the tiled (Khaprail)
accommodation was in occupation of
Doodh Nath Singh as tenant. Rudra Sen
Bajpai, who happens to be a practicing
Advocate on the criminal side filed a
petition
for
release
of
the
accommodations, aforesaid, under the
provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of Section 21 of the U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent,
Eviction and Letting) Act, 1972 (Act no.
XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') for the purposes of construction
of a garage and office, registered as P.A.
case no. 820 of 1980. The release petition
was dismissed by the learned Prescribed
Authority by order dated 27.03.1982. The
respondent no. 2 landlord preferred an
appeal under section 22 of the Act (Rent
Appeal No. 156 of 1982) which was
partly allowed by order dated 11.04.1983,
inasmuch as, khaprail in occupation of
Doodh Noath Singh tenants was released
and in respect of the two other tenants, the
appeal was dismissed. The appellate court
appeared to be of the view that the
landlord may conveniently have his office
constructed over the roof of the garage.
The landlord filed a writ petition no. 9078
of 1983, which has been allowed by this
court by order dated. 21.01.2000 whereby