# Rakesh Kumar Goswami & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 428
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 22806 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-kumar-goswami-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50891
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Land Acquisition Act,1894Sections 18, 28A(1), 28A(2), 28A(3) &
50(2)-challenge
to-compensationPetitioners filed for redetermination of
compensation u/s 28A of the Act based on
the revised Supreme Court rate ie Rs.120
per sq.yard-The collector initially rejected
this but following a High Court directions,
redetermined at Rs. 103.34 per sq. yard in
2023-Payment was withheld as the
beneficiary(respondent no. 3) filed a
reference u/s 28A(3) challenging the
award-Held, Section 28A(3) references
cannot be filed by beneficiaries like
respondent no. 3 due to statutory bars u/s
50(2)-Beneficiaries do not qualify as "
persons interested" under the provision of
section 28A(3) for filing references-The
collector's determination of compensation
u/s 28A(2) cannot be reduced by the
reference court, as prohibited by section
25 of the Act-Thus, the petitioners are
entitled
to
the
compensation
2 All. Rakesh Kumar Goswami & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
429
redetermined by the collector-The court
directed the beneficiary to release the
awarded amount within a month with
interest as per section 34 of the Act.(Para
1 to 19)

The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
effect on the issue of maintainability of
application for reference u/s 28A(3) of the
Act, 1894 against the order of the Collector
passed u/s 28A(2) of the Act, 1894.

17. Even the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner regarding Section
25 of the Act, 1894 also appeared to be
correct because once there is specific bar
u/s 25 of the Act, 1894, the court shall not
award compensation less than the amount
awarded by the Collector, therefore, the
amount of compensation determined by the
Collector u/s 28A(2) of the Act, 1894
cannot be reduced by the reference court
u/s 28A(3) of the Act, 1894. Therefore,
permitting such an application on the part
of the beneficiary of acquired land will
amount to frustrating the intention of the
legislature. From the perusal of the order of
respondent No.2, it is also clear that before
passing the order u/s 28A(2) of the Act,
1894,
respondent
No.3
was
heard;
therefore, proper opportunity of hearing
was accorded to respondent No.3.

18. In view of the above considered
position, this Court is of the view that
application for reference u/s 28A(3) of the
Act, 1894 is not maintainable at the
instance of respondent No.3 and this Court,
in the judgement of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad vs. Mohd. Yakoob and others
(supra) has not laid down any law
regarding the maintainability of such
application on the part of the beneficiary of
the acquired land.

19. Accordingly, this writ petition is
allowed, and direction is issued to
respondent No.3 to forthwith release the
awarded amount u/s 28A(2) of the Act,
1894 by order dated 27.2.2023 within a
period of one month from the date of
receiving a certified copy of this order
along with interest as per Section 34 of the
Act, 1894.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 428
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ C No. 22806 of 2023

Rakesh Kumar Goswami & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla, Sri Lalit Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Archit Mandhyan, Sri Suresh C.
Dwivedi

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Land Acquisition Act,1894Sections 18, 28A(1), 28A(2), 28A(3) &
50(2)-challenge
to-compensationPetitioners filed for redetermination of
compensation u/s 28A of the Act based on
the revised Supreme Court rate ie Rs.120
per sq.yard-The collector initially rejected
this but following a High Court directions,
redetermined at Rs. 103.34 per sq. yard in
2023-Payment was withheld as the
beneficiary(respondent no. 3) filed a
reference u/s 28A(3) challenging the
award-Held, Section 28A(3) references
cannot be filed by beneficiaries like
respondent no. 3 due to statutory bars u/s
50(2)-Beneficiaries do not qualify as "
persons interested" under the provision of
section 28A(3) for filing references-The
collector's determination of compensation
u/s 28A(2) cannot be reduced by the
reference court, as prohibited by section
25 of the Act-Thus, the petitioners are
entitled
to
the
compensation
2 All. Rakesh Kumar Goswami & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
429
redetermined by the collector-The court
directed the beneficiary to release the
awarded amount within a month with
interest as per section 34 of the Act.(Para
1 to 19)

The writ petition is allowed. .( E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs Mohd.
Yakoob & ors..(2022)AIR All 291, First Appeal
No. 305 of 2021

2.
Shekhar
Resorts
Ltd.
Vs
U.O.I.
MANU/SC/0015/2023

3. Yogesh Agarwal Vs Estate Officers & ors..
MANU/UP/1620/2015

4. Himalayan Tiles & Marbles Pvt Ltd. Vs Francis
Victor Coutinho (dead) (1980) 3 SCC 223

5. U.O.I. & anr. Vs Sher Singh & ors.. (1993) 1
SCC 608

6. Sandeep Kumar Bafna Vs St.of Mah. &
anr.(2024) 16 SCC 623

7. Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee
Vs Siddha Math & ors.. (2015) 16 SCC 542

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Suresh C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 and learned Standing
Counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2.

2. By means of the present petition,
the petitioners are seeking direction to the
respondents to pay compensation awarded
by order dated 27.2.2023 passed by
respondent No.2, u/s 28A of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 1894").

3. Factual matrix arising out of the
present case is that the petitioners were the
co-sharer of 1/4 share of plot No. 239 area
6 bigha 15 biswa and 5 dhoor, situated at
Village Chharra Rafatpur, Aligarh. The
aforesaid plot was acquired by notification
dated 27.4.1984 issued u/s 4(1) of the Act,
1894, followed by notification u/s 6 of the
Act, 1894 for the construction of a new
market yard of respondent No.3. Collector
determined the rate @ Rs.16.66 per sq.
yard. Though the petitioners received the
compensation under protest, they did not
file reference u/s 18 of the Act, 1894
because of their poor financial condition,
but their co-sharers in plot No. 239 had
filed reference against the award of
Collector u/s 18 of the Act, 1894 which was
allowed on 21.8.1998, in Land Acquisition
Reference (L.A.R.) No. 35 of 1990 (Smt.
Urmila Devi and others vs. State of U.P.
and others), by which the compensation
was enhanced by fixing rate @ Rs. 100 per
sq. yard. Aggrieved of the aforesaid, the
petitioners
moved
an
application
on
28.9.1998 u/s 28A(1) of the Act, 1894
before respondent No.2 for redetermination
of compensation on the basis of judgement
passed in L.A.R. No. 35 of 1990. During
the pendency of the aforesaid application of
the petitioners, respondent No.3 filed an
appeal against the order of reference court
award dated 21.8.1998 before this Court
bearing Appeal No. 610 of 1998 (Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Smt. Urmila
Devi and others), and claimants have also
filed cross objection against the aforesaid
award of reference court. The High Court,
after
hearing
the
aforesaid
appeal,
dismissed the appeal of respondent No.3
but partly allowed the cross-appeal of the
claimants on 8.9.2015, as corrected by
order
dated
8.10.2015,
by
granting
additional compensation of Rs.80,000/- to
the claimants. The co-sharer of the
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners, not satisfied with the judgement
of the High Court dated 8.9.2015 and
8.10.2015, had preferred Civil Appeal No.
10225-10226 of 2018 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, and the Apex Court was
pleased to allow the same by order dated
5.10.2018 fixing the compensation of the
land @ Rs.120 per sq. yard. The petitioners
for getting the benefit of the enhanced rate
of
compensation,
determined
by
the
Supreme Court, also moved an additional
application before respondent No.2 on
19.12.2018 as part of their earlier pending
application u/s 28A(1) of the Act, 1894.
Respondent No.2, by order dated 2.5.2022,
rejected the application of the petitioners
filed u/s 28A(1) of the Act, 1894. Feeling
aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.2022, the
petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 20627 of
2022
(Rakesh
Kumar
Goswami
and
another vs. State of U.P. and others) before
this Court, and the same was allowed by
order dated 2.11.2022 and respondent No.2
was directed to pass a fresh order on the
application of the petitioners u/s 28A(1) of
the Act, 1894, after hearing all the parties.
In pursuance of the order of the High Court
dated 2.11.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.
20627 of 2022 filed by the petitioners,
respondent No.2 passed an order dated
27.2.2023 by which he allowed the
application of the petitioners u/s 28A(1) of
the Act, 1894 and redetermined the
compensation @ Rs. 103.34 per sq. years
along with other statutory benefits.

4. Submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that despite the order
dated 27.2.2023 of respondent No.2 for
redetermination of compensation, the same
was not paid to them.

5. Learned counsel for respondent
No.3 contended that as respondent No.3
has filed reference u/s 28A(3) of the Act,
1894 against redetermined award dated
27.2.2023 by respondent No.2, therefore,
till the decision of the aforesaid reference
enhanced amount of compensation cannot
be disbursed to the petitioners. However,
learned Standing Counsel has stated that
S.L.O. has already written a letter dated
27.2.2023 to respondent No.3 to deposit the
compensation as per the order dated
27.2.2023 so that the same could be
disbursed to the petitioners. But it is
respondent No.3 who has not deposited the
compensation of the petitioners, and for
these reasons, the same could not be paid to
them.

6. Learned counsel for respondent
No.3, in support of his contention, relied
upon the judgement of this Court passed in
First Appeal No. 305 of 2021 (U.P. Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Mohd. Yakoob
and others; AIR 2022 ALL 291) decided
on 3.6.2022 and contended that the
Division Bench while passing the above
judgement clearly observed that at the
instance of the beneficiary of the acquired
land, though appeal u/s 54 of the Act, 1894
is not maintainable, there is a remedy to file
an application for reference u/s 28A(3) of
the Act, 1894. It was further submitted by
learned counsel for respondent No.3 that
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
the
judgement of Shekhar Resorts Ltd. vs.
Union
of
India,
reported
in
MANU/SC/0015/2023 as well as this
High Court in Yogesh Agarwal vs.
Estate Officers and others reported in
MANU/UP/1620/2015 held that that no
party can be left remediless for operation
of law, therefore, in absence of any other
provision against the order passed u/s
28A(2) of the Act, 1894, application for
reference is maintainable u/s 28A(3) of
the Act, 1894 at the instance of
beneficiary of acquired land.
2 All. Rakesh Kumar Goswami & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
431

7. In reply to the objection of
respondent No.3, learned counsel for the
petitioners specifically submitted that the
application for reference u/s 28A(3) of the
Act, 1894 against the order passed u/s
28A(2) is not maintainable at the instance
of the beneficiary of the acquired land
because that provision is for the benefit of
land owners whose land has been acquired
and the beneficiary does not come within
the definition of 'interested person'. It was
further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that even if it is accepted for the
sake of argument that the reference is
maintainable, even then reference court
cannot reduce the amount of compensation
as determined by the Collector because of
the provision of Section 25 of the Act,
1894. Therefore, there is no reason to file
an application for reference by the
respondent No.3 u/s 28A(3) of the Act,
1894, and the entire exercise is being
conducted by respondent No.3 just to delay
the
disbursal
of
the
amount
of
compensation to the petitioners.

8. After considering the submission as
well as on perusal of record, the only issue
for determination in the present case arises
is whether the application for reference
under Section 28A (3) of the Act, 1894 is
maintainable at the instance of the
beneficiary of land (respondent no.3). It
would be relevant to reproduce Section28A of the Act, 1894 and the same is being
reproduced as under :

"[28A. Redetermination of the
amount of compensation on the basis of the
award of the Court. - (1) where in an award
under this part, the court allows to the
applicant any amount of compensation in
excess of the amount awarded by the
collector under section 11, the persons
interested in all the other land covered by
the same notification under section 4, subsection (1) and who are also aggrieved by
the
award
of
the
Collector
may,
notwithstanding that they had not made an
application to the Collector under section
18, by written application to the Collector
within three months from the date of the
award of the Court require that the amount
of compensation payable to them may be
redetermined on the basis of the amount of
compensation awarded by the court:

Provided that in computing the
period of three months within which an
application to the Collector shall be made
under this sub-section, the day on which
the award was pronounced and the time
requisite for obtaining a copy of the award
shall be excluded.

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt
of an application under sub-section (1),
conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all
the persons interested and giving them a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, and
make an award determining the amount of
compensation payable to the applicants.

(3) Any person who has not
accepted the award under sub-section (2)
may,
by
written
application
to
the
Collector, required that the matter be
referred
by
the
Collector
for
the
determination of the Court and the
provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far
as may be, apply to such reference as they
apply to a reference under section 18.]"

9. From the perusal of Section 28A(3)
of the Act, 1894, it appears that two parts of
this provision are necessary. First is "any
person who has not accepted the award"
and second is "provisions of Sections 18
and 28 of the Act, 1894 shall also be
applied to such reference" as they are
applied to reference under Section 18 of the
Act, 1894. Therefore, from the above part
of Section 28A(3) of the Act, 1894, it is
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
clear that this provision is almost pari
materia with Section 18 of the Act, 1894
regarding reference against the award of
Collector u/s 18 of the Act, 1894. For the
maintainability of the application for
reference, a person must be personally
interested; therefore, the word 'any person'
mentioned in Section 28A(3) of the Act,
1894, can be interpreted as the 'person
interested' who has not accepted the award.
Section 18 of the Act, 1894, being a
relevant provision for this controversy, is
being reproduced as under :

"18. Reference to Court. - (1) Any
person interested who has not accepted the
award may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be
referred
by
the
Collector
for
the
determination of the Court, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the
land, the amount of the compensation, the
person to whom it is payable, or the
apportionment of the compensation among
the persons interested.

(2) The application shall state the
grounds on which objection to the award is
taken:

Provided
that
every
such
application shall be made-

(a) if the person making it was
present or represented before the Collector
at the time when he made his award, within
six weeks from the date of the Collector's
award;

(b) in other cases, within six
weeks of the receipt of the notice from the
Collector under section 12, sub-section (2),
or within six months from the date of the
Collector's award, whichever period shall
first expire.

3. Without prejudice to the
provisions of sub-section (1) the Land
Reforms Commissioner may, where he
considers the amount of compensation
allowed by the award under section 11 to
be excessive, require the Collector that the
matter be referred by him to the Court for
determination
of
the
amount
of
compensation.

Explanation.- In any case of land
under Chapter VII the requisition under
this sub-section may be made by the Land
Reforms Commissioner at the request of the
company on its undertaking to pay all the
costs consequent upon such requisition.

4. The requisition shall state the
grounds on which objections to the award
is taken and shall be made within six
months from the date of the award."

10. Term 'person interested' has
been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the judgement of Himalayan Tiles and
Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Francis Victor
Coutinho (dead) reported in (1980) 3 SCC
223 and Union of India and another Vs.
Sher Singh and others reported in (1993)
1 SCC 608. In both the judgements, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court though clearly held
that the 'person interested' also includes the
beneficiary of land; therefore, they also
have the right to be heard or to file an
objection before the court during reference
by taking into consideration Section 50(2)
of the Act, 1894 which is being reproduced
as under:-

"(2) In any proceeding held
before a 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.

Provided that no such local
authority or Company shall be entitled to
demand a reference under section 18."

11. Paragraph No.14 of the judgement
in Himalayan Tiles (supra) is also being
quoted as below :
2 All. Rakesh Kumar Goswami & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
433

"Thus, the preponderance of
judicial opinion seems to favour the view
that the definition of 'person interested'
must be liberally construed so as to'
include a body, local authority, or a
company for whose benefit the land is
acquired and who is bound under an
agreement to pay the compensation. In our
opinion, this view accords with the
principles of equity, justice and good
conscience. How can it be said that a
person for whose benefit the land is
acquired
and
who
is
to
pay
the
compensation is not a person interested
even though its stake may be extremely
vital? For instance, the land acquisition
proceedings may be held to be invalid and
thus a person concerned is completely
deprived of the benefit which is proposed to
be given to him. Similarly if such a person
is not heard by the Collector or a court, he
may
have
to
pay
a
very
heavy
compensation which, in case he is allowed
to appear before a court, he could have
satisfied it that the compensation was far
too heavy having regard to the nature and
extent of the land. We are, therefore, unable
to agree with the view taken by the Orissa
High Court or even by the Calcutta High
Court that a company, local authority or a
person or whose benefit the land is
acquired is not an interested person. We are
satisfied that such a person is vitally
interested both in the title to the property as
also in the compensation to be paid
therefor because both these factors concern
its future course of action and if decided
against him, seriously prejudice his rights.
Moreover, in view of the decision of this
Court referred to above, we hold that the
appellant was undoubtedly a person
interested as contemplated by s. 18(1) of
the Act. The High Court, therefore,
committed an error in throwing out the
appeal of the appellant on the ground that
it had no locus to file an appeal before the
Bench."

12. The above view, taken in
Himalayan Tiles (supra), was approved in
the judgement of the Union of India and
another Vs. Sher Singh and others
(supra).

13. From the above judgements, it is
very clear that Hon'ble Supreme Court
treated the beneficiary as a person
interested in compensation for the purpose
of hearing them at the time of hearing of
reference before the court, but the Hon'ble
Court did not observe that the beneficiary
of the acquired land will also be treated as
person interested for the purpose of filing
application for reference either u/s 18 or
28A(3) of the Act, 1894 against the award
of Collector because proviso of Section
50(2) of the Act, 1894 clearly provides that
no such local authority or company shall be
entitled to demand a reference u/s 18 of the
Act, 1894. Therefore, there is a specific
statutory bar on the part of the beneficiary
of acquired land to make any reference u/s
18 of the Act, 1894. This Court is of the
opinion that bar also applies on reference
u/s 28A(3) of the Act, 1894.

14. Though this Court, in the
judgement of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad vs. Mohd. Yakoob and others
(supra) observed that appeal u/s 54 of the
Act, 1894 against the award of Collector
u/s 28A of the Act, 1894 is not
maintainable, but also observed that
remedy u/s 28A (3) of the Act, 1894 is
available
to
the
beneficiary
without
considering the proviso of Section 50(2) of
the Act, 1894. Even though there was no
issue before the court in the above
judgement whether the application for
reference under 28A(3) of the Act, 1894 is
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintainable at the instance of the
beneficiary, therefore, proviso of Section
50(2) of the Act, 1894 was not placed
before the court and for that reason that
could not be considered. Therefore, the
above judgement relied upon by respondent
no.3 can be said to be per incuriam because
of non-consideration of the statutory bar of
proviso of Section 50(2) of the Act, 1894.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement
of Sandeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, reported in
(2014) 16 SCC 623 observed in paragraph
No.19 as under:-

"It cannot be over-emphasised
that
the
discipline
demanded
by
a
precedent
or
the
disqualification
or
diminution of a decision on the application
of the per incuriam rule is of great
importance, since without it, certainty of
law, consistency of rulings and comity of
Courts would become a costly casualty. A
decision or judgment can be per incuriam
any provision in a statute, rule or
regulation, which was not brought to the
notice of the Court. A decision or judgment
can also be per incuriam if it is not
possible to reconcile its ratio with that
of a previously pronounced judgment of
a Coequal or Larger Bench; or if the
decision of a High Court is not in
consonance with the views of this
Court. It must immediately be clarified
that the per incuriam rule is strictly and
correctly
applicable
to
the
ratio
decidendi and not to obiter dicta. It is
often encountered in High Courts that
two or more mutually irreconcilable
decisions of the Supreme Court are
cited at the Bar. We think that the
inviolable recourse is to apply the
earliest view as the succeeding ones
would fall in the category of per
incuriam."

15. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Sri Jagannath Temple
Managing Committee vs. Siddha Math
and others, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 542
observed in paragraph No. 35 as under:-

"It becomes clear from a perusal
of the case law adverted to by the learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant
Temple
Committee
that
a
judgment can be said to be per incuriam
when it is passed in forgetfulness or
ignorance of a statute operating in that
field. The notification dated 18.03.1974
vested the estates of Lord Jagannath, Puri
in the State Government in view of the
amended provision of the proviso to Section
2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 inserted by way
of an Amendment in the year 1974. The
judgment in the case of Lord Jagannath
was passed only on consideration of the
OEA Act, 1951. The provisions of the
Temple Act, 1955, which is the principal
Act that applies to the Lord Jagannath
Temple, Puri were not adverted to at all."

16. Therefore, from the legal position
discussed above, it is clear that if the
judgement is rendered in ignorance of any
statutory provision, then that will be
deemed to be per incuriam and will not
have a binding effect on that particular
issue. Therefore, the judgement rendered
by the Division Bench of this Court in U.P.
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Mohd.
Yakoob and others (supra) has no binding
effect on the issue of maintainability of
application for reference u/s 28A(3) of the
Act, 1894 against the order of the Collector
passed u/s 28A(2) of the Act, 1894.

17. Even the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners regarding
Section 25 of the Act, 1894 also appeared
to be correct because once there is specific
2 All. Sanjeev Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
435
bar u/s 25 of the Act, 1894, the court shall
not award compensation less than the
amount awarded by the Collector, therefore, the
amount of compensation determined by the
Collector u/s 28A(2) of the Act, 1894 cannot be
reduced by the reference court u/s 28A(3) of the Act,
1894. Therefore, permitting such an application on
the part of the beneficiary of acquired land will
amount to frustrating the intention of the legislature.
From the perusal of the order of respondent No.2, it
is also clear that before passing the order u/s 28A(2)
of the Act, 1894, respondent No.3 was heard;
therefore, proper opportunity of hearing was
accorded to respondent No.3.

18. In view of the above considered position,
this Court is of the view that application for reference
u/s 28A(3) of the Act, 1894 is not maintainable at the
instance of respondent No.3 and this Court, in the
judgement of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs.
Mohd. Yakoob and others (supra) has not laid down
any law regarding the maintainability of such
application on the part of the beneficiary of the
acquired land.

19. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed,
and direction is issued to respondent No.3 to
forthwith release the awarded amount u/s 28A(2) of
the Act, 1894 by order dated 27.2.2023 within a
period of one month from the date of receiving a
certified copy of this order along with interest as per
Section 34 of the Act, 1894.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 435
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.08.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, C.J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 26374 of 2023

Sanjeev Rastogi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vineet Kumar Sahu

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashish Agrawal, Sri Sandeep
Arora

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-SARFEASI Act-Sections 14, 17
& 17(4A)-The petitioner claimed tenancy
rights and sought to prevent eviction-the
landlord defaulted on the loan, leading to
the initiation of recovery proceedings-the
petitioner failed to demonstrate lawful
tenancy through registered documentsUnder SARFAESI Act, valid tenancy
prior to the creation of mortgage can
protect
possession
rights-tenancy
established post-mortgage or without
proper registration cannot override the
bank's rights-The petitioner has the
option to approach the Debt Recovery
Tribunal under section 17(4A) of the
Act to establish tenancy rights.(Para 1
to 8)

The writ petition is disposed of.( E-6)
.
List of cases cited:

1. Hemraj Ratnakar Salian Vs HDFC Bank Ltd &
ors.. (2021) AIR SC 3880

2. Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal Vs Central
Bank of India & anr.. (2019) 9 SCC 94

 (Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,
C.J.
&
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vineet Kumar Sahu,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Sandeep Arora, learned counsel for
respondent No. 3-Union Bank of India
and learned Standing Counsel for
State-respondent Nos. 1 & 2. None for
respondent No. 4.