# Ram Chandra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 308
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-03
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 19800 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-chandra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49204
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Acquisition Law - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Sections 18 & 28-A - Enhancement
of award - Application was rejected on
the ground of lack of review power -
Validity challenged - Held, petitioners'
remedy against the order impugned,
would be to make an application to the
Collector requiring the matter to be
referred to the Court under sub-Section
(3) of Section 28-A. Once that reference is
made, it goes without saying that the
Reference Court will examine the question
on the basis of evidence to be adduced by
parties
-
The
application
is
within
limitation and ought to have been decided
on merits. (Para 16 and 19)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

## Text

308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
futility.
In
Principles
of
Statutory
Interpretation (13th Edition), the celebrated
author (Justice G.P. Singh) observes in the
very first Chapter that a statute or any enacting
provision therein must be so construed as to
make it effective and operative on the principle
expressed in the maxim: ut res magis valeat
quam pereat". Lord Dunedin in Manchester
Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Racecourse
Co. observes that it is our duty to make what
we can of statutes, knowing that they are
meant to be operative, and not inept, and
nothing short of impossibility should in my
judgment allow a judge to declare a statute
unworkable. The principle was reiterated by
him in a later case where he observed: "A
statute is designed to be workable, and the
interpretation thereof by a court should be to
secure that object, unless crucial omission or
clear direction makes that end unattainable."

42. Thus, our answer to issues (iii) and
(iv) is as follows:-

Issue (iii): An elected member is
not debarred from signing written notice of
intention to make the motion even if he/she
has failed to subscribe to oath of office.

Issue (iv): A meeting held for
considering motion of no confidence is a
special meeting with specific purpose and
is distinct from a meeting of a Kshettra
Panchayat held for transacting its ordinary
business. An elected member even if has
not subscribed to oath is entitled to
participate in a meeting of no confidence,
although
would
not
be
entitled
to
participate
in
the
meeting
held
for
transacting the ordinary business of the
Kshettra Panchayat.

CONCLUSION

43. Thus, our answer to the issues
framed is as follows:-

Issue (i): Elected members are those
who are chosen by direct election from
territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area.

Issue (ii): The elected members do
not cease to hold their office for not
subscribing to the oath of office.

Issue:(iii): An elected member is not
debarred from signing written notice of
intention to make the motion even if he/she
has failed to subscribe to oath of office.

Issue: (iv): A meeting held for
considering motion of no confidence is a
special meeting with specific purpose and is
distinct from a meeting of a Kshettra
Panchayat held for transacting its ordinary
business. An elected member even if has not
subscribed to oath is entitled to participate in a
meeting of no confidence, although would not
be entitled to participate in the meeting held
for transacting the ordinary business of the
Kshettra Panchayat.

44.

The
reference
is
answered
accordingly.

45. Let the papers be placed before the
Bench having jurisdiction in the matter for
further proceedings.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 308
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-C No. 19800 of 2022

Ram Chandra & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ms. Pooja Agarwal
2 All. Ram Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
309
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Ray (Addl. C.S.C.), Sri Pramod
Singh

A. Acquisition Law - Land Acquisition Act,
1894 - Sections 18 & 28-A - Enhancement
of award - Application was rejected on
the ground of lack of review power -
Validity challenged - Held, petitioners'
remedy against the order impugned,
would be to make an application to the
Collector requiring the matter to be
referred to the Court under sub-Section
(3) of Section 28-A. Once that reference is
made, it goes without saying that the
Reference Court will examine the question
on the basis of evidence to be adduced by
parties
-
The
application
is
within
limitation and ought to have been decided
on merits. (Para 16 and 19)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 27.04.2022
passed
by
the
Additional
District
Magistrate (Land Acquisition)/ (Housing),
Kanpur Nagar, rejecting the petitioners'
application
for
enhancement
of
compensation under Section 28-A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the
Act of 1894'). A further writ in the nature
of mandamus has been sought directing the
respondents to pay compensation to the
petitioners in terms of the award dated
25.01.2021 passed by the Additional
District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Case
No.257/70 of 1993 and in view of the
revised award dated 24.09.2009 passed by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer
(Housing), Kanpur Nagar.

2. The petitioners essentially claim to
exercise their right under Section 28-A of
the Act of 1894 on the ground that they
have not challenged the Collector's award
through a reference under Section 18 of the
Act of 1894, but sought re-determination of
the same under Section 28-A, based on the
revised award dated 24.09.2009 relating to
the same acquisition for some landholders.

3. As application under Section 28-A
of the Act of 1894 preferred by the
petitioners was not decided for a long time
and they filed Writ - C No.33973 of 2012
for a direction to the Collector to decide the
application. The application was directed to
be decided vide order dated 15.09.2016
passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The
order was not complied with, leading to
initiation of proceedings for contempt.
After contempt proceedings were initiated,
the Additional District Magistrate (Land
Acquisition)
proceeded
to
reject
the
application vide order dated 20.03.2017
holding that the petitioners' claim for
enhancement under Section 28-A of the
Act 1894 was not tenable.

4. Aggrieved by that order, the
petitioners filed Writ - C No. 17190 of
2017.
This
Court
vide
order
dated
23.10.2019 observed that in the order dated
20.03.2017, there is reference to a report/
letter dated 17.01.2017, which was not
supplied to the petitioners. The order of the
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition) was, therefore, set aside with a
direction to supply the report dated
17.01.2017 to the petitioners within a
month and decide afresh. The District
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated
20/21.10.2020
again
rejected
the
petitioners' claim under Section 28-A of the
Act on the ground that he had no
jurisdiction to review his earlier dated
20.03.2017. This order dated 20/21.10.2020
was challenged by the petitioners through
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ - C No.26177 of 2020 before this
Court.

5. The order of the District Magistrate
dated 20/21.10.2020 was quashed by this
Court vide judgment and order dated
21.01.2021 passed in Writ - C No. 26177 of
2020 and the matter was remitted back to the
District Magistrate, requiring him to pass
fresh orders after considering all objections
raised by the petitioners. Upon determining
the matter remanded by this Court, the
District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar held that
the award dated 24.09.2009 passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short,
''the SLAO') was confined to those parties,
who had litigated before this Court and the
Supreme Court, and not the other land
oustees. The writ petitioners were not
petitioners in the writ petitions that were
earlier filed before this Court challenging the
concerned land acquisition notifications. It
was also opined that the Act of 1894 makes
provision for a reference to be sought by a
landholder, if he is aggrieved by the
compensation awarded by the Collector,
under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Those
landholders, who do not exercise their right
under Section 18, upon pronouncement of
award by the Reference Court relating to the
same notification at the instance of other
landholders, can apply within three months
under Section 28-A of the Act of 1894. It was
held that the petitioners neither applied under
Section 18 nor under Section 28-A. The
representation,
that
they
preferred
on
01.02.2021 in compliance with this Court's
order dated 21.01.2021, passed in Writ - C
No. 26177 of 2020, was held to be not in
conformity with the Act of 1894 and liable to
be rejected. The petitioners were, however,
left free to pursue their remedies seeking
enhancement of the compensation under the
Act of 1894, before the Court of competent
jurisdiction.

6. It must be remarked at once that the
order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the
District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar does not
appear to have been challenged by the
petitioners by moving this Court or some
other
competent
forum.
Instead,
an
application under Section 28-A of the Act
of 1894 was made seeking enhancement of
the compensation, on the basis of the
revised award dated 24.09.2009 passed by
the Land Acquisition Officer, and on the
added ground of an award of the Reference
Court in L.A.R. No. 257/70 of 1993, Nanku
(deceased) through their LRs vs. State of
U.P., decided on 25.01.2021 by the
Additional District Judge-XII, Kanpur
Nagar, that was claimed to be related to the
same acquisition. This application of the
petitioners under Section 28-A of the Act
of 1894 was rejected by means of the
impugned order dated 27.04.2022 passed
by the Additional District Magistrate, Land
Acquisition/ (Housing), Kanpur Nagar.

7. We have heard Ms. Pooja Agarwal,
learned Counsel for the writ petitioners,
Mr. Pramod Singh, learned Counsel for the
Avas and Vikas Parishad and Mr. A.K.
Ray, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel on behalf of the State.

8. As appears from the record that
there are two separate limbs, on the basis of
which the petitioners have sought revision
of compensation under Section 28-A of the
Act of 1894. One is based on the revised
award
passed
by
the
SLAO
dated
24.09.2009 and the other on the award of
the Reference Court dated 25.01.2021. So
far as the exercise of right under Section
28-A of the Act of 1894 is concerned, the
same cannot be exercised on the basis of a
revised award being passed in relation to
certain landholders by the Collector/
SLAO, on any ground. The right to apply
2 All. Ram Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
311
under Section 28-A accrues on the basis of
the judgment of the Reference Court in
favour of a person, who himself has not
preferred a reference under Section 18, but
is covered by the same notification, where
the
Reference
Court
has
enhanced.
Therefore, no right can be claimed for
enhancement
of
compensation
under
Section 28-A of the Act of 1894 on the
basis of a revised award, may be relating to
the same notification passed by the
Collector or the SLAO. This part of the
petitioners' case is not tenable.

9. However, there is another aspect of
the matter, which Ms. Pooja Agarwal,
learned Counsel for the petitioners has been
at pains to canvass before us. And, that is
that the writ petitioners being covered by
the
same
notification
as
the
other
landholders in whose case the revised
award dated 24.09.2009 has been passed,
there is no reason not to extend the same
benefit to the petitioners. If that is not done,
according to the learned Counsel, it would
be discriminatory. This submission has
been opposed by the learned Counsel for
the respondents, who say that the revised
award dated 24.09.2009 was passed by the
SLAO in favour of certain landholders in
very distinguishable circumstances. We
have perused the record and considered the
submission on this point carefully.

10. Upon a perusal of the record and
the sequence of events, it transpires that in
some cases covered by the notification
issued under Section 32 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Avas
Evam
Vikas
Parishad
Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short, ''the Act of
1965'), challenge was mounted by certain
landholders before this Court successfully,
with the acquisition being quashed vide
order dated 03.10.1985, passed in Writ
Petition No. 4776 of 1984.

11. Upon an Appeal preferred by the
U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad by Special
Leave, being Civil Appeal No. 1807 of
1986, the Supreme Court vide judgment
and order dated 13.02.2002 set aside this
Court's order and restored the acquisition.
The unsuccessful landholders, who had
litigated up to the Supreme Court, moved
the Supreme Court vide Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 452 of 2002. The said Writ
Petition was dismissed on 02.09.2002,
leaving the parties free to pursue their
remedy under the law. Those landholders
did not get relief and again petitioned this
Court vide Writ Petition No. 44131 of
2004, Shrikumar Singh and others vs. State
of U.P. and others, which this Court
decided vide order dated 28.10.2004,
directing that the landholders concerned are
entitled
to
claim
compensation
in
accordance with law.

12. It appears that some difficulty
arose or it was perceived on account of this
Court's earlier judgment dated 03.10.1985,
setting aside the acquisition to the extent
that it related to the writ petitioners of Writ
Petition No. 4776 of 1984. The difficulty
that was felt was that the said notification
being set aside, all subsequent proceedings
for acquisition, including the award dated
23.09.1986 relating to the concerned
landholders got nullified. The SLAO
sought guidance from the Government,
who vide a Government Order dated
10.10.2007 clarified matters and gave
directions. Acting on those directions, the
SLAO passed
a
fresh
award
dated
24.09.2009.

13. By this award, the SLAO granted
a higher rate of compensation being Rs.45/-
per square yard, based on the Court's
determination under Section 18 of the Act
of 1894, in cases where the landholders
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affected by the same notification had
applied for a reference. It appears that the
present petitioners, though claimed to be
affected by the same notification, had not
challenged
the
acquisition
and
the
respondents' case is that the award dated
24.09.2009 is confined to those landholders
alone, who had questioned the acquisition
and litigated up to the Supreme Court. The
petitioners had accepted the award dated
23.09.1986 that was originally passed and
never questioned the acquisition. The
respondents took a stand, which was
accepted
by
the
SLAO
vide
order
20.10.2010,
that
the
award
dated
24.09.2009 passed by the SLAO is
confined to the writ petitioners of Writ
Petition No. 4776 of 1984 and involves
138-19-0 bighas of land and nothing more.

14. The award dated 24.09.2009 was
held not to apply to the petitioners vide
order dated 20/21.10.2020 passed by the
Collector, Kanpur Nagar. According to the
Avas and Vikas Parishad, the petitioners
cannot claim rights based on the SLAO's
revised award dated 24.09.2009.

15. For reasons that are pellucid in the
recount of facts hereinabove, the award
dated 24.09.2009 is applicable to a very
distinguishable class of land oustees, that is
to say, those who were petitioners in Writ
Petition No. 4776 of 1984 and had litigated
up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners,
who are not parties to that litigation, cannot
be said to be one discriminated against in
the matter of passing of a revised award by
the
SLAO,
granting
enhanced
rates,
different from the original award. This part
of the submission is also, therefore, not
tenable.

16. Now, this takes us to the other
limb of the petitioners' submission that the
Reference Court having passed an award
dated 25.01.2021 in L.A.R. No. 257/70 of
1993,
which
relates
to
the
same
notification, entitles the petitioners to
maintain their application under Section
28-A of the Act of 1894, that has been
made on 17.04.2021. The said application
is within limitation and ought to have been
decided on merits.

17.

The
Additional
District
Magistrate, Land Acquisition has rejected
the application by a cryptic observation,
saying that the objections raised by the
Avas and Vikas Parishad are tenable and
the applications under Section 28A is
contrary to law. Now, the objection, that
has been taken by the Executive Engineer
of the U.P. Avas and Vikas Parishad is one
set out in a letter dated 02.03.2022,
addressed
to
the
Additional
District
Magistrate, Land Acquisition. In the said
letter, it is said that the application under
Section 28A relates to land affected by the
Land
Development-cum-Residential
Scheme No.3, whereas the award dated
25.01.2021 passed by the Reference Court,
on the basis of which jurisdiction is
invoked under Section 28-A, relates to
Land
Development-cum-Residential
Scheme No.1.

18. It was further said that the land
affected
by
Land
Development-cumResidential Scheme No.3 was acquired
through notifications under Sections 28 and
32 of the Act of 1965, dated 08.03.1980
and
28.08.1982,
whereas
Land
Development-cum-Residential
Scheme
No.1, that relates to the petitioners' land,
comprises
land
acquired
through
notifications
dated
17.02.1973
and
27.02.1980.
In
effect,
therefore,
the
Executive Engineer, Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad
said
that
the
award dated
2 All. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari @ Sanjay Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
313
25.01.2021 passed by the Reference Court
related to a different acquisition made
through notifications, completely different
from ones through which the petitioners'
land was acquired. This is a case which
would require inquiry on the basis of
evidence, at least comparing the plot
numbers and the acquisition notifications.
It is not something that could be disposed
of by a cryptic remark accepting a letter
saying all these things, addressed by the
Executive Engineer, Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad
to
the
Additional
District
Magistrate, Land Acquisition. Whichever
way the matter is looked at, it is after all a
matter of evidence, where the land of the
petitioners is allegedly one that has been
acquired through the same notification i.e.
the subject matter of the award dated
25.01.2021 passed in L.A.R. No. 257/70 of
1993. The order of the Additional District
Magistrate,
L.A.,
rejecting
the
said
application is one that ultimately declines
to redetermine the award on whatever
ground. It is, therefore, as much an award
as one that adjudicates the claim on merits
and determines a figure of compensation
payable,
upon
a
revision
done
in
accordance with the Reference Court's
judgment.

19. The petitioners' remedy against
the order impugned, in our opinion,
therefore, would be to make an application
to the Collector requiring the matter to be
referred to the Court under sub-Section (3)
of Section 28-A. Once that reference is
made, it goes without saying that the
Reference Court will examine the question
on the basis of evidence to be adduced by
parties, if indeed the petitioners are entitled
to claim benefit of the award dated
25.01.2021 passed in L.A.R. No. 257/70 of
1993. The question of the relevant
notification, through which the petitioners'
land has been acquired and the one that is
subject matter of L.A.R. No. 257/70 of
1993 being one or not, would also be
examined by the Court, as this issue is a lis
which the Court ought to decide.

20. Upon an application being made
by the petitioners to the Collector, Kanpur
Nagar, reference shall be made under subSection (3) of Section 28-A of the Act of
1894. It goes without saying that the Court
concerned shall entertain the reference and
decide the same after hearing parties, in
accordance with law.

21. The petition is disposed of,
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 313
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 21923 of 2019

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari @ Sanjay Tiwari
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Sri Sanjay
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Registration of Births and
Deaths Act, 1969 - Sections 13(3) & 15 -
Date of death - Correction proceeding -
Nature - Opinion, how far relevant - Held,
the enquiry contemplated u/s 13 is limited
for
the
purposes
of
verifying
the