# Raj Pal Singh -Claimant v. State of U. P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 441
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-10-10
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 273 of 1996
- **Bench:** G.P. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-pal-singh-claimant-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40939
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act-Section 20 (1)-AEnhancement of compensations-S.L.O.
given award at the rate of Rs.12500/-
per Bigha-reference court enhanced to
Rs.20,000/- per Bigha with solatium at
the rate of 30% along with 12% interest
on
enhanced
amount-first
appeal
claiming further enhancement-held-not
entitled for larger amount what have
been claimed by the appellant.

Held: Para 10

It appears that the Reference court has
come to conclusion that the market
value of the land in question should be at
least at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per bigha
because the land in question stands on
the better footing than the land involved
in the award given by the S.L.A.O. dated
2.3.1983 in respect of a different village
Badha. As the appellants themselves
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
claimed
compensation
at
the
Rs.20,000/- per bigha before the S.L.A.O.
therefore they cannot be held entitled
for larger amount. Moreover they could
not show any exemplar which may
entitle him more compensation than
awarded by the Reference Court.

## Text

2 All] Raj Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
441
17. In the instant case, the learned
Magistrate has directed to summon the
accused persons under Section 190(1)(b)
of Cr.P.C. This in itself is an illegal order
as the accused could not be summoned
and tried under Section 190 of Cr.P.C.
This section empowers the Magistrate to
take cognizance of an offence which is
constituted from the facts as disclosed in
the
police
report.
The
accused
is
summoned for the offence that has been
committed by him under the provisions of
Indian Penal Code or any other law under
which he could be tried and punished. The
learned Magistrate Should have specified
the offence and the section (s) under
which he was summoning the accused
after taking cognizance. Thus I come to
the conclusion that the impugned order
dated 10.10.2006 passed by the learned
Magistrate is not correct and is liable to
be set aside. The order in revision passed
on 6.12.2006 by the learned Incharge
Sessions Judge is also, therefore, liable to
be set aside. Therefore, the writ petition is
to be allowed.

18. The writ petition is hereby
allowed and the impugned orders are set
aside. The learned Magistrate is directed
to consider the matter afresh and to
proceed according to law and in the light
of the observations made in the judgment
herein above. The complainant shall
appear in the Court of the learned
Magistrate for further orders on 12th
March, 2007.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD09.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal No. 273 of 1996

Raj Pal Singh
...Appellant-Claimant
Versus
State of U. P. and others ...Respondents

Connected with
First Appeal No. 274 of 1996, First Appeal
No. 275 of 1996, First Appeal No. 276 of
1996, First Appeal No. 277 of 1996, First
Appeal No. 278 of 1996, First Appeal No.
279 of 1996, First Appeal No. 280 of
1996, First Appeal No. 281 of 1996

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri P.K. Singh
Sri B.C. Jauhari

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Land Acquisition Act-Section 20 (1)-AEnhancement of compensations-S.L.O.
given award at the rate of Rs.12500/-
per Bigha-reference court enhanced to
Rs.20,000/- per Bigha with solatium at
the rate of 30% along with 12% interest
on
enhanced
amount-first
appeal
claiming further enhancement-held-not
entitled for larger amount what have
been claimed by the appellant.

Held: Para 10

It appears that the Reference court has
come to conclusion that the market
value of the land in question should be at
least at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per bigha
because the land in question stands on
the better footing than the land involved
in the award given by the S.L.A.O. dated
2.3.1983 in respect of a different village
Badha. As the appellants themselves
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
claimed
compensation
at
the
Rs.20,000/- per bigha before the S.L.A.O.
therefore they cannot be held entitled
for larger amount. Moreover they could
not show any exemplar which may
entitle him more compensation than
awarded by the Reference Court.

(Delivered by Hon'ble G.P. Srivastva. J.)

1. These are appeals against the
judgment and decree passed by the
learned
VIII
Addl.
District
Judge,
Ghaziabad
on
19.2.1987
in
Land
Acquisition Reference No. 96 of 1983 and
14 others which were consolidated and
the L.A.R. No. 96 of 1983 was made a
leading case.

All those references arose out of the
award dated 15.12.1981 given by he
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Ghaziabad in respect of 39-323 acres of
land of village Mohammadpur Khuralia
Pargna
and
Tehsil
Garh
District
Ghaziabad. The said land was acquired
for the construction of Madhya Ganga
Nahar,
Nirman
Khand
9,
Garh,
Ghaziabad. The notification under section
4 (1) of Land Acquisition Act was
published on 28.7.1979 and notification
under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act
read with section 17 of the said Act was
published on 15.9.1979. Possession of the
land was taken on 21.11.1979. The
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Ghaziabad awarded compensation at the
rate of Rs.12,500/- per bigha. The
claimants preferred Land Acquisition
References noted above which were
decided by the impugned judgment dated
19.2.1987 whereby it was held that the
market value of the land was Rs.20,000
per bigha. The claimants were also given
additional amount under section 20(1-A)
at the rate of 12% per annum on the
market value, solatium at the rate of 30%,
interest at the rate 9% per annum from the
date of possession and cost under section
27 (2) of the Act.

2. Feeling aggrieved with the
judgment and decree passed by the
learned
VIII
Addl.
District
Judge,
Ghaziabad, nine tenure holders/claimants
out of fifteen have preferred these appeals
which has been connected with First
Appeal No. 273 of 1996 Raj Pal Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and others.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and gone through the entire
evidence on record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants
has argued that the learned court below in
determining the market value of the land
arbitrarily determined the market value at
the rate of Rs.20,000/- per bigha whereas
it should not be where as it should not be
less than Rs.40,000/- per bigha.

5. The learned Addl. District Judge
while determining the market value of the
land has first of all considered the sale
deed dated 7.12.1978 allegedly executed
by one Hari Prakash in favour of
Hoshiyar Singh in respect of Khasra No.
245 measuring 2-17-12 bighas. In this
sale deed the vendor had sold his 1/3
share for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-.
This sale deed was considered by the
S.L.A.O. but the learned Reference Court
after considering the evidence on record
came to the conclusion that the S.L.A.O.
erred while awarding compensation on
the basis of this sale deed.

6. The next sale deed which was
considered, and examined by the learned
Reference Court is the sale deed dated
2 All] Raj Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
443
4.9.1975 executed by Kalu and others in
favour
of
Harish
Chandra
for
a
consideration of Rs.18,000/-. The land in
this sale deed was sold at Rs.20/- per sq.
yard. The said land situated at a distance
of 12 miles from Hapur. The said sale
deed was executed 4 years before the
notification under section 4 (1) of the Act.
As the sale deed was for a very small
piece of land measuring 8.84 sq. yard and
the land was abadi land, therefore this sale
deed was neither relied upon by the
S.L.A.O. nor by the learned Reference
Court. However as the sale deed relates to
abadi land and very small piece of land
therefore this sale deed was rightly
discarded.

7. The claimants have filed another
sale deed dated 23.3.1978 whereby a land
measuring
0-1-17
was
sold
for
a
consideration of Rs.14,250/-. The land of
the sale deed situated in the same village.
This sale deed was executed one year
before the notification under section 4 (1)
of the Act. The learned Reference Court
has held that the land in question can be
equated with the land involved in the sale
deed, as regard to the potentiality because
both the land situate in the same village.
The learned Reference Court has not
considered
the
said
sale
deed
in
determining the compensation without
assigning
any
reason.
The
learned
Standing Counsel has argued that the sale
consideration of the land if calculated will
come more than Rs. One lac per bigha
and the appellants have never claimed
compensation at such excessive rate but
only at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha
therefore it cannot be a basis for
determining compensation of the land
involved.

8. The learned Reference Court has
referred an award of S.L.A.O. dated
2.3.1983 relied upon by the claimant
which relates to village Badha. In the said
case S.L.A.O. has awarded compensation
at the rate of Rs.18,500/-,per bigha. The
said land is 6 kms away from National
High Way but the land in question is near
National High Way. Moreover the land
situates near Simbholi Sugar Factory
therefore the learned Reference Court has
opined that the S.L.A.O. must have
granted compensation at least at the rate
of Rs.18,500/- per bigha.

9. The claimants in the Reference
Court has submitted another sale deed
dated 10.8.1983 which was executed for
Rs.52,000/- but the sale deed was rejected
because it was executed after 5 years from
the date of notification.

10. It appears that the learned
Reference court has determined the
market value at the rate of Rs.20,000/·
influenced by the demand of the claimants
as shown in the award of S.L.A.O.
wherein it is mentioned that the tenure
holders demanded compensation at the
rate of Rs.20,000/- per bigha. No counter
appeal has been filed by the State nor
there is any counter objection preferred by
the State. It appears that the Reference
court has come to conclusion that the
market value of the land in question
should be at least at the rate of
Rs.20,000/- per bigha because the land in
question stands on the better footing than
the land involved in the award given by
the S.L.A.O. dated 2.3.1983 in respect of
a
different
village
Badha.
As
the
appellants
themselves
claimed
compensation at the Rs.20,000/- per bigha
before the S.L.A.O. therefore they cannot
be held entitled for larger amount.
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Moreover they could not show any
exemplar which may entitle him more
compensation than awarded by the
Reference Court.

11. The appeals fail and are
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Special Appeal No. 200 of 2007

Ajay Pratap Rai ...Respondent-Appellant
Versus
District Basic Education Officer Jaunpur
and others
 ...Petitioner-Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri P.N. Saksena
Sri R.M. Vishwakarma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri P.N. Triapthi
S.C.

(A)
Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Doctrine of Merger-upgradation of junior
High
School
to
High
School
then
Intermediate-No
existence
of
Junior
High
School-or
the
High
School-No
question of appointment of Head Master
of Junior High School-except under the
provisions
of
U.P.
Inter
Mediate
Education Act 1921.

Held: Para 13

The contention of Shri Saxena, therefore,
to the effect that institution did not loose
its identity as a Junior High School has to
be necessarily rejected. Accordingly, we
are of the considered opinion that
neither the selection nor appointment of
the appellant nor the appointment of the
respondent no.3 was in order and,
therefore, the learned Single Judge was
perfectly justified in holding that no
selection or appointment has been held
in accordance with law to the post of
Head of the Institution.

(B)
Constitution
of
India-Art.
226Recovery of Salary-petitioner no eligible
for the post of head of institution-applied
and got appointed as Head Master-Not
occasion for making application for Head
Master in Junior High School-payment of
salary-complete fraud on statute in
contravention
of
law-recovery
held
proper.

Held: Para 20

In sum and substance, we are of the
view
that
after
upgradation
of
an
institution from Junior High School to
High School and then to Intermediate,
the lower section of the institution, i.e.
Junior High School looses its existence
and merges into the higher section and
in that eventuality, the question of
making the appointment of Head Master
for the Junior High School, a Principal for
the High School and another Principal to
run the Intermediate classes would lead
to
complete
chaotic
situation
and
absurdity. Thus, the appointment on the
post of Head Master could not be made.
The appellant did not possess the
eligibility, i.e. experience as required
under the law in making an application
to the said post and had illegally been
appointed.
Further,
the
serious
illegality/irregularity in advertising the
vacancy existed and the possibility of
committing fraud cannot be ruled out. As
the appointment of the appellant had
been made in total violation of law and
without possessing the eligibility, the
recovery of salary received by him in
contravention of the order passed by the
Statutory Authority does not warrant any
interference.