# Rajendri Devi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1413
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-10-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54866 of 2014
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendri-devi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43143
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Petitioner
seeking benefit Division Bench judgment
-denied-while
all
other
7
persons
appointed as Routine Grade Clerk-along
with
petitioner-got
extended
same
benefits-held-once it is found that post
of RGC abolished and merged to AROpetitioner and 7 others representationst

## Text

3 All].
Rajendri Devi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1413
immediately upon the receipt of the
certified copy of this order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54866 of 2014
Rajendri Devi & Ors.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gopal Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents
C.S.C., Suresh Singh
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Release
of land-acquired under Land Acquisition
Act-without disclosing particular of date
of notification u/s 4 and 6 of Act-without
disclosing
the
date
on
which
compensation received-claim based upon
letter dated 24.04.2014 by Principle
Secretary Industrial development-heldcan not be
ground of release under
section 48 without denotification of
government-where no possession takenwhere
compensation
given
and
possession taken-can not be released
pursuant
to
letter
referred
abovepetition dismissed.
Held: Para-6 & 7
6. We are of the considered opinion that
such Government Orders/Letters of the
Principal Secretary cannot be made a
tool to reopen the settled acquisition
proceedings specifically where the land
holder has accepted the compensation
without protest.
7. The State Government has to keep in
mind the provisions of Section 48 of the
Land Acquisition Act which confers a
right upon the State Government to
withdraw from the acquisition any land,
possession whereof has not been taken,
meaning
thereby
that
where
the
possession of the acquired land has been
taken, there cannot be a withdrawal of
any
land
from
the
acquisition
proceedings covered by Sections 4 and 6
of the Land Acquisition Act.
Case Law discussed:
2008 (1) AWC 399
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel for respondent
no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.
2. It is admitted on record that the
land of the petitioners was acquired under
the provisions of Land Acquisition Act,
1894. It is also admitted on record that the
petitioners have taken compensation for
the land, which had been so acquired.
3. What is missing from the writ
petition is as to on what date the
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were made
and on what date petitioners had actually
received the entire compensation.
4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners refers to the letter of the
Principal
Secretary,
Industrial
Development Department, Government of
U.P. at Lucknow dated 24th April, 2010
enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ
petition for the reliefs prayed for in the
present writ petition i.e. for the acquired
land being leased in his favour.
5. We have gone through the letter
of the Principal Secretary dated 24th
April, 2014 and we find that in the letter it
1414
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has been recorded that in exceptional
circumstances i.e. where there is a dispute
with regard to the acquired land being
Abadi, where there is public agitation
against acquisition or law and order
situation has arisen, the Noida, Greater
Noida
and
Yamuna
Express-way
Industrial Development Authorities, while
recommending de-notification of the
acquisition, may examine the leasing out
of property in favour of the person whose
land has been so acquired.
6. We are of the considered opinion
that such Government Orders/Letters of
the Principal Secretary cannot be made a
tool to reopen the settled acquisition
proceedings specifically where the land
holder has accepted the compensation
without protest.
7. The State Government has to keep
in mind the provisions of Section 48 of
the Land Acquisition Act which confers a
right upon the State Government to
withdraw from the acquisition any land,
possession whereof has not been taken,
meaning
thereby
that
where
the
possession of the acquired land has been
taken, there cannot be a withdrawal of any
land from the acquisition proceedings
covered by Sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act.
8. We may record that a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul
Salam alias Babu versus State of U.P. &
Others, reported in 2008 (1) AWC 399,
has specifically held that once the land
has been acquired under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act and possession
has been taken, no application for release
of the acquired land from the acquisition
proceedings can be made before the State
Government.
9. What logically follows is that the
letter of the Principal Secretary dated 24th
April, 2010 can be read to mean that
power to de-notify the land would be
available to the State Government only
where the possession of the land has not
been taken under the Land Acquisition
Act. Where the possession has been taken,
the letter of the Principal Secretary dated
24th April, 2010 will have no application.
10. Therefore, there cannot be any
mandamus as prayed for in the facts of the
case.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the
present writ petition is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55500 of 2013
Dharmendra Singh Rathor
..Petitioner
Versus
Hon'ble Chief Justice Hon. High Court
Judicature at Alld. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Tiwari
Counsel for the Respondents
Sri Samir Sharma, Sri Ashish Mishra
Sri Manish Goyal, S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Petitioner
seeking benefit Division Bench judgment
-denied-while
all
other
7
persons
appointed as Routine Grade Clerk-along
with
petitioner-got
extended
same
benefits-held-once it is found that post
of RGC abolished and merged to AROpetitioner and 7 others representationst