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

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 396
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-06
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 4336 of 2020
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prit-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45960
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution of India - Article 300A - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11 -
Property - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Award - Right to
property - person whose land is acquired
is entitled for grant of compensation -
State cannot acquire the property and
refuse to make payment of compensation
(Para 14)

Land acquisition u/s 4 L.A. Act, 1894 dt
10.3.1978- SLAO notice dt. 9.12.1999 to tenure
holders to complete formalities to receive
compensation - Petitioners claimed they still in
physical possession & no compensation paid to
them - sought relief in writ petition that they
may not be dispossessed & compensation be
paid - Held - Petitioner's only entitled for
compensation under the Act 1894 - Court
declined to accept that possession not taken -
Also
held
petitioners
not
entitled
for
compensation as per prevalent market value
under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013, as acquisition had
taken place long time back (Para 16)

Disposed off. (E-5)

List of case cited:-

## Text

396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and surrenders before the court below within
thirty days from today and apply for bail, then
the bail application of the applicant be
considered and decided in view of the settled
law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati
and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

8. For a period of thirty days from
today or till the disposal of the application
for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicant.

9. However, in case, the applicant
does not appear before the Court below
within the aforesaid period, coercive action
shall be taken against him.
----------
(2020)09ILR A396
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

WRIT - C No. 4336 of 2020

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Juned Alam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India - Article 300A - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11 -
Property - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Award - Right to
property - person whose land is acquired
is entitled for grant of compensation -
State cannot acquire the property and
refuse to make payment of compensation
(Para 14)

Land acquisition u/s 4 L.A. Act, 1894 dt
10.3.1978- SLAO notice dt. 9.12.1999 to tenure
holders to complete formalities to receive
compensation - Petitioners claimed they still in
physical possession & no compensation paid to
them - sought relief in writ petition that they
may not be dispossessed & compensation be
paid - Held - Petitioner's only entitled for
compensation under the Act 1894 - Court
declined to accept that possession not taken -
Also
held
petitioners
not
entitled
for
compensation as per prevalent market value
under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013, as acquisition had
taken place long time back (Para 16)

Disposed off. (E-5)

List of case cited:-

1. Vidya Devi Vs St. of H.P., Civil Appeal
No.3674 o 2009, decided on 4.12.2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

1. We have heard Sri Juned Alam,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and with their consent this writ
petition is being decided at this stage.

2. The petitioners claim themselves to
be recorded tenure holders of Revenue Plot
No.1/17, 1/18, 1/9(New numbers 46, 47
and 48) situated in village Bharwalia,
Tappa Pakari Gangarani, pargana Sudhwa
Jobani, at present in district Kaushambi
(earlier in the undivided district Deoria).
Being aggrieved from the proceeding
9 All. Ram Prit & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
397
relating to acquisition of aforesaid land,
which was made vide notification issued
under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894(for short 'the Act 1894') dated
10.3.1978 for the public purpose to
establish
Government
Industrial
Institute(for short 'the Institute') have filed
present writ petition seeking the relief that
they may not be dispossessed and the
respondent-authorities be directed to pay
compensation in lieu of the acquired land
as per the Act, 1894 along with the interest
from the date of notification till the date of
taking possession on the prevalent market
value within a specified period. The prayers
made in the writ petition are reproduced as
under:

"i) issue, a writ, order or direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
directing/restraining the respondents not to
dispossess the petitioners from their land
i.e. Old Plot No.1/19/1, 1/18, 1/17, New
Plot No.46, 47 and 48 Hect. situated in
Village
Bharwaliya,
Tappa
Pakari
Gangarani, Pargana Sidhuwa Jobjna, Tehsil
Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar.

ii) issue, a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
the respondents to pay the compensation of
the land so acquired being Old Plot
No.1/19/1, 1/18, 1/17, New Plot No.46, 47
and
48
Hect.
situated
in
Village
Bharwaliya,
Tappa
Pakari
Gangarani,
Pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, Tehsil Padrauna,
District Kushi Nagar as per provision of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 along with the
interest from the date of notification ill date
of taking possession at the prevalent market
within the period so stipulated by this
Hon'ble Court.

iii) issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award cost of the writ
petition to the petitioners."

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that after the
issuance of notification under Section 4 of
the Act, 1894, a notice on Form-II was
published by the Collector, Deoria relying
upon
the
notice
of
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer, Deoria( for short
'SLAO') in Case No.2 of 1984, stating that
the possession of acquired land had been
taken on 06.01.1984 and hence the said
land was to be mutated in the records in the
name
of
Government
Industrial
Institute(for short 'the Institute'). The tenure
holders whose land was acquired were also
required by the SLAO, by notice dated
9.12.1999 to complete all the requisite
formalities to receive compensation of their
acquired land by appearing in person
before concerned authority.

4. The petitioners have further stated
that in the meantime the village came under
the consolidation operations under the
provisions
of
U.P.
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act 1953 ( for short 'the Act
1953'). The consolidation operation was
finalized and the Consolidation Officer
issued notification under Section 52 of the
Act 1953. The Consolidation Officer,
issued notice dated 6.8.2018 requiring the
petitioners to appear on 10.8.2019 for
making reference to the Deputy Director of
Consolidation (DDC) for mutation of the
name of the Institute in place of the name
of the petitioners as the acquisition of the
land had taken place under the Act 1894. In
response,
the
petitioners
filed
their
objection and thereafter reference was
made to Deputy Director of Consolidation,
which was allowed by order dated
29.8.1998 directing to record the name of
Government Industrial Institute over the
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acquired land. The petitioners have further
submitted that the award of the acquired
land was made under Section 11 of the Act,
1894 but they are still in physical
possession over the acquired land and till
date no physical possession had been taken
nor any building was constructed over the
acquired land.

5. From the record it is evident that
earlier, the petitioners filed Writ C No.40507
of 2018 (Ram Preet Vs. State of U.P. and 3
others), decided on 10.12.2018 for direction to
the respondent-authorities to return the land of
the petitioners or to direct them to pay
compensation to the petitioners, as per the
provisions of the "Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency
in
Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013".
(for short "the Act 2013). This writ petition
No.40507 of 2018 was dismissed by this Court
with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the
order 29.08.2018 passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar.

6. This Court held that the writ
petition for direction to the respondentauthorities to return the land of the
petitioners is misconceived. Likewise, if
the acquisition had taken place long time
back as it appeared from the reports
submitted
in
connection
with
the
consolidation
proceedings,
how
could
compensation be awarded under the Act,
2013. The appropriate course for the
petitioners was to challenge the order
passed in consolidation proceeding. This
Court noticed that the petitioners had not
challenged the notification, in respect of
acquisition of the land. The order dated
10.12.2018 passed in Writ C No.40507 of
2018 is reproduced below:-

"The instant petition has been
filed for a direction upon the respondent
authorities to return the land of the
petitioner or to direct the respondent
authorities to pay compensation to the
petitioners as per the provisions of the
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

From the record it appears that
during the consolidation operations, a
report was submitted by the Consolidation
Officer by way of reference to the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Kushinagar to
correct the records to make it in conformity
with
some
earlier
land
acquisition
notification. Pursuant to the report, the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Kushingar, by order dated 29.08.2018,
accepted
the
reference
and
directed
correction in the records accordingly.

The order of the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Kushingar has not been
challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner
has also not challenged any notification in
respect of acquisition of the land.

Under the circumstances, the writ
petition for a direction upon the respondent
authorities to return the land of the
petitioner is misconceived. Likewise, if the
acquisition had taken place long time back
as it appears from the reports submitted in
connection with consolidation proceedings,
how could compensation be awarded under
the Act, 2013. The appropriate course for
the petitioner is to challenge order passed
in consolidation proceeding. The petition
is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to
the petitioner to challenge the order dated
29.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Kushinagar..."

7. Thereafter, the petitioners filed
Writ B No.1180 of 2019 (Shrikant And
Another vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others)
challenging the order dated 10.8.2018
passed by Consolidation Officer, Padrauna,
9 All. Ram Prit & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
399
Kushinagar and the order dated 29.8.2018
passed
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Kushinagar, as well as the
notification
dated
10.3.1978
by
the
Government of Uttar Pradesh. This writ
petition was also dismissed on merits,
holding that in Writ C No.40495 of 2018,
no liberty was given to the petitioners to
challenge the notification issued under the
Land Acquisition Act, and even otherwise
the notification issued under Section 4 of
Land Acquisition Act, which was issued in
the year 1978 could not be challenged in
the writ petition and the petitioners have to
challenge the said notification explaining
laches by way of separate writ petition,
which is cognizable by the Division Bench.
This Court did not find any illegality or
infirmity in the order dated 29.8.2018
passed by Deputy Deputy Director of
Consolidation, accepting the reference,
which was a consequential order, pursuant
to the proceedings held under the Land
Acquisition Act. The Writ petition was
dismissed.
However,
petitioners
were
granted liberty to challenge the notification
dated 10.3.1978 issued under Sections 4
and 6 of the Act, 1894 before the
appropriate forum.

8. The judgment passed in Writ B
No.1180 of 2019 dated 10.5.2019 is being
reproduced as under:-

"Heard
Sri
Bisham
Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Present writ petition has been
filed challenging the order dated 10.8.2018
passed by Consolidation Officer, Padrauna,
Kushinagar and the order dated 29.8.2018
passed
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, Kushinagar as well as the
notification dated 10.3.1978 issued by
Government of Uttar Pradesh.

It reflects from the record that
vide notification dated 10.3.1978 issued by
the State Government, land of petitioners
were acquired, during the consolidation
operation, report was submitted by the
Consolidation Officer on 10.8.2018 by way
of reference to Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Kushinagar to correct the
record and make it inconformity with the
notifications issued under Section 4 and 6
of the Land Acquisition Act.

Pursuant
to
the
report
of
Consolidation
Officer,
reference
was
accepted vide impugned order dated
29.8.2018 and accordingly, the record was
directed to be corrected. It is also on the
record that petitioner filed Writ C No.
40495 of 2018 for issuance of writ of
mandamus commanding the respondent
authorities to return the land of petitioners
or to direct the respondent authorities to
pay compensation to the petitioners as per
provisions of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency and Resettlement Act,
2013. The said writ petition was dismissed
with liberty to the petitioners to challenge
the order dated 29.8.2018 passed by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Kushinagar.
Thereafter,
present
writ
petition has been filed by the petitioners
challenging the order dated 10.8.2018
passed by the Consolidation Officer and
order dated 29.8.2018 passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation as well as the
notification dated 10.3.1978

Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that petitioners have no
knowledge about the acquisition and
therefore, reference has wrongly been
accepted
by
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation vide impugned order dated
29.8.2018.

I have considered the submissions
as raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners and perused the record.
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Record reveals that pursuant to the
notification issued under Section 4 and 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act in the year 1978, a
report was submitted by the Consolidation
Officer on 10.8.2018 to correct the record
inconformity with the earlier land acquisition
notification. Pursuant to the report, reference
was accepted by Deputy
Director of
Consolidation vide impugned order dated
29.8.2018.

In Writ C No. 40495 of 2018, no
liberty was given to the petitioner to
challenge the notification issued under
Land Acquisition Act, even otherwise the
notification issued under Section 4 of Land
Acquisition Act in the year 1978 cannot be
challenged in the present writ petition.
Petitioners have to challenge the said
notification explaining laches by way of
separate writ petition, which is cognizable
by the Division Bench.

I do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the order impugned herein
dated 29.8.2018 passed by Deputy Deputy
Director of Consolidation accepting the
reference, which is a consequential order
pursuant to the proceeding held under the
Land Acquisition Act.

Writ petition lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.

However, liberty is given to
petitioners to challenge the notification
dated 10.3.1978 issued under Section 4 and
6
of
Land
Acquisition
Act
before
appropriate forum after explaining laches."

9. The petitioners in the present writ
petition have stated in paragraph 22, that
the notification issued under Section 4 of
the Act 1894 cannot be challenged. They
have
also
not
challenged
the
said
notification.

10. Now we proceed to consider the
submission of the petitioners' counsel that
the possession was not taken from the
petitioners and as no physical possession
was taken, the title of the petitioners did not
extinguish over the acquired land. We are
not inclined to accept the petitioners' this
contention that possession was not taken as
the same is contrary to the record i.e. FormII which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition,
and which specifically mentions that the
possession of the acquired land was taken
by he State and was delivered to the State
Industrial Department on 6.1.1984. Only
mutation in the name of Government
property was required in the revenue
record.

11. Once the award has been made
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
the possession taken by the Government,
present writ petition for direction to the
respondents
not
to
dispossess
the
petitioners from the acquired land, is
misconceived. Besides, for this prayer no.i)
the present writ petition would not be
maintainable as the petitioners in the earlier
writ petition, Writ C No.40507 of 2018 had
prayed for return of the land but writ
petition was dismissed by this Court.

12. So far as the prayer for payment
of compensation of the acquired land is
concerned,
the
petitioners'
Writ
C
No.40507 of 2018 was dismissed by this
Court holding that the acquisition had taken
long back and as such compensation could
not be awarded under the Act 2013. In Writ
C No.40507 of 2018 the prayer was for
grant of compensation of the acquired land
under the Act 2013. In view of the
judgment dated 10.12.2018, the petitioners'
second prayer to grant compensation of the
acquired land, "at the prevalent market
value", is nothing but the same prayer in
substance, as was rejected in Writ C
No.40507 of 2018. The present writ
9 All. Ram Prit & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
401
petition for the same prayer cannot be
entertained. The petitioners cannot be
granted compensation under the Act 2013.

13. We, however, find that the
petitioners' land was acquired way back in
1978 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
and under Section 11 of the said Act,
compensation was awarded. Possession was
also taken from the petitioners, which was
delivered to State Industrial Department on
6.1.1984. Even notice dated 9.2.1999 was
issued
to
the
petitioners
to
receive
compensation (Annexure-3) after completing
the
formalities,
from
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer, Deoria. The petitioners
have stated that they have yet not been paid
any compensation of their acquired land in
pursuance of the award made under Section
11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

14. If the petitioners have not been
paid compensation yet, they are entitled for
payment of compensation as no one can be
deprived of his property save by the
authority of law which is a right guaranteed
under Article 300A of the Constitution of
India. The Land Acquisition Act,1894,
which deprives a person from his land
makes
provision
for
payment
of
compensation. The person whose land is
acquired
is
entitled
for
grant
of
compensation. The State cannot acquire the
property and refuse to make payment of
compensation. Recently, in Vidya Devi v.
State of H.P., Civil Appeal No.3674 o
2009, decided on 4.12.2019, Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that to hold
property is a Constitutional right under
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
It is also a human right. The Right to hold
property, therefore, cannot be taken away
except under the provisions of the Statute.
Paragraph 12 to 13 of Vidya Devi's case
(supra) read as follows:-

"12. We have heard learned
Counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

12.1. The Appellant was forcibly
expropriated of her property in 1967, when
the right to property was a fundamental
right guaranteed by Article 31 in Part III of
the Constitution. Article 31 guaranteed the
right to private property1, which could not
be deprived without due process of law and
upon just and fair compensation.

12.2. The right to property ceased
to
be
a
fundamental
right
by
the
Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment)
Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a
human right2 in a welfare State, and a
Constitutional right Under Article 300A of
the Constitution. Article 300A provides
that no person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law. The
State cannot dispossess a citizen of his
property except in accordance with the
procedure
established
by
law.
The
obligation to pay compensation, though not
expressly included in Article 300A, can be
inferred in that Article.

12.3 To forcibly dispossess a
person of his private property, without
following due process of law, would be
violative of a human right, as also the
constitutional right Under Article 300A of
the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the
judgment
in
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chennai
(2005) 7 SCC 627, wherein this Court held
that:

6. ... Having regard to the
provisions contained in Article 300-A of the
Constitution, the State in exercise of its
power of "eminent domain" may interfere
with the right of property of a person by
acquiring the same but the same must be
for a public purpose and reasonable
compensation therefor must be paid.
(emphasis supplied)
402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12.4 In N. Padmamma v. S.
Ramakrishna Reddy (2008) 15 SCC 517,
this Court held that:

21. If the right of property is a
human right as also a constitutional right,
the same cannot be taken away except in
accordance with law. Article 300-A of the
Constitution protects such right. The
provisions of the Act seeking to divest such
right, keeping in view of the provisions of
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India,
must
be
strictly
construed.
(emphasis supplied)

12.5. In Delhi Airtech Services
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,
(2011) 9 SCC 354, this Court recognized
the right to property as a basic human right
in the following words:

30. It is accepted in every
jurisprudence and by different political
thinkers that some amount of property right
is an indispensable safeguard against
tyranny and economic oppression of the
Government. Jefferson was of the view that
liberty cannot long subsist without the
support of property. "Property must be
secured, else liberty cannot subsist" was
the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view
that property itself is the seed bed which
must be conserved if other constitutional
values are to flourish is the consensus
among political thinkers and jurists.
(emphasis supplied)

12.6
In
Jilubhai
Nanbhai
Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995) Supp. 1
SCC 596 this Court held as follows:

48. ...In other words, Article 300A only limits the powers of the State that no
person shall be deprived of his property
save by authority of law. There has to be no
deprivation without any sanction of law.
Deprivation by any other mode is not
acquisition or taking possession Under
Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no
law,
there
is
no
deprivation.
(emphasis supplied)

12.7. In this case, the Appellant
could not have been forcibly dispossessed
of her property without any legal sanction,
and without following due process of law,
and
depriving
her
payment
of
just
compensation, being a fundamental right
on the date of forcible dispossession in
1967.

12.8. The contention of the State
that the Appellant or her predecessors had
"orally" consented to the acquisition is
completely baseless. We find complete lack
of
authority
and
legal
sanction
in
compulsorily divesting the Appellant of her
property by the State.

12.09. In a democratic polity
governed by the Rule of law, the State
could not have deprived a citizen of their
property without the sanction of law.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of this
Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. v.
M.I.D.C. and Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 353
wherein it was held that the State must
comply with the procedure for acquisition,
requisition, or any other
permissible
statutory mode. The State being a welfare
State governed by the Rule of law cannot
arrogate to itself a status beyond what is
provided by the Constitution.

12.10 This Court in State of
Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar held that the
right to property is now considered to be
not only a constitutional or statutory right,
but also a human right. Human rights have
been considered in the realm of individual
rights such as right to shelter, livelihood,
health, employment, etc. Human rights
have gained a multi-faceted dimension.

12.11. We are surprised by the
plea taken by the State before the High
Court, that since it has been in continuous
possession of the land for over 42 years, it
would tantamount to "adverse" possession.
9 All. Ram Prit & Ors.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
403
The State being a welfare State, cannot be
permitted to take the plea of adverse
possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a
person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to
gain legal title over such property for over
12 years. The State cannot be permitted to
perfect its title over the land by invoking
the doctrine of adverse possession to grab
the property of its own citizens, as has been
done in the present case.

12.12. The contention advanced
by the State of delay and laches of the
Appellant in moving the Court is also liable
to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be
raised in a case of a continuing cause of
action, or if the circumstances shock the
judicial
conscience
of
the
Court.
Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial
discretion,
which
must
be
exercised
judiciously and reasonably in the facts and
circumstances of a case. It will depend
upon the breach of fundamental rights, and
the remedy claimed, and when and how the
delay arose. There is no period of limitation
prescribed for the courts to exercise their
constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial
justice.

12.13. In a case where the
demand for justice is so compelling, a
constitutional Court would exercise its
jurisdiction with a view to promote justice,
and not defeat it.4

12.14. In Tukaram Kana Joshi
and Ors. v. M.I.D.C. and Ors. (2013) 1
SCC 353, this Court while dealing with a
similar fact situation, held as follows(SCC
p.359, para 11)

"11.There are authorities which
state that delay and laches extinguish the
right to put forth a claim. Most of these
authorities
pertain
to
service
jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a
wrong done to them decades ago, recovery
of statutory dues, claim for educational
facilities and other categories of similar
cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are
a few authorities that lay down that delay
and laches debar a citizen from seeking
remedy, even if his fundamental right has
been violated, Under Article 32 or 226 of
the Constitution, the case at hand deals
with
a
different
scenario
altogether.
Functionaries of the State took over
possession of the land belonging to the
Appellants without any sanction of law. The
Appellants had asked repeatedly for grant
of the benefit of compensation. The State
must either comply with the procedure laid
down for acquisition, or requisition, or any
other
permissible
statutory
mode."
(emphasis supplied)

13. In the present case, the
Appellant being an illiterate person, who is
a widow coming from a rural area has been
deprived of her private property by the
State without resorting to the procedure
prescribed by law. The Appellant has been
divested of her right to property without
being paid any compensation whatsoever
for over half a century. The cause of action
in the present case is a continuing one,
since the Appellant was compulsorily
expropriated of her property in 1967
without legal sanction or following due
process of law. The present case is one
where the demand for justice is so
compelling since the State has admitted
that the land was taken over without
initiating acquisition proceedings, or any
procedure known to law. We exercise our
extraordinary jurisdiction Under Articles
136 and 142 of the Constitution, and direct
the State to pay compensation to the
Appellant.

15. We are, therefore, of the
considered view that the petitioners are
entitled for payment of compensation of
their acquired land in terms of the award
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and for payment of
which notice dated 9.12.1999 was issued to
the petitioners.

16. We make it clear that the petitioners
are not entitled for payment of compensation
as per prevalent market value of the acquired
land under the provisions of the Act 2013 as
Writ C No.40507 of 2018 for such prayer,
was dismissed. However, dismissal of Writ C
No.40507 of 2018 would not come in the
way of grant of compensation to the
petitioners under the Act 1894, under which
award has been made inasmuch as in that writ
petition this much was held that petitioners
cannot be granted compensation under the
Act 2013 as acquisition had taken place long
time back. The petitioners are entitled for
compensation under the Act 1894 and they
cannot
be
deprived
of
payment
of
compensation, at all, although their land had
been acquired. To uphold and enforce the
petitioners' constitutional right to property
guaranteed
by
Article
300-A
of
the
Constitution of India, we provide and direct
the respondents-1 to 5 that the petitioners
shall be paid compensation of their acquired
land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
for which award had been made and notice
dated 9.12.1999 had also been issued to
petitioners to receive compensation, if the
same has yet not been made, within a period
of three months from the date of production
of certified copy of this judgment by the
petitioners before respondents-1 to 5.

17. The writ petition is disposed of
with the observations/directions made in
this order/judgment.

18. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)09ILR A404
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

WRIT - C No. 5756 of 2020

Ramchandra Verma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Nawal Kishore Mishra, Sri S.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anand Kumar Pandey, Sri
Satendra Pratap Singh

Civil Law -U.P. Municipalities Act (2 of
1916)-Section 287- Human dwelling/shop
in
dilapidated
condition-Inspection-
Advance Notice - Inspection in presence of
its occupier with at least four hour's,
advance notice must - Exceptional clause -
U/s 263 (2)-Immediate action for the
prevention
of
danger
from
ruinous
buildings -power can be exercised without
complying with provisions u/s 287 - but
power u/s 263 is to be exercised sparingly
only when there is imminent danger of the
building falling causing loss to human life
& property (Para 8, 10, 12)

Impugned notice cum order not contain any fact
to show that building arrived at such a condition
that needed exercise of power u/s 263 urgently
- exceptional clause wrongly invoked - Order set
aside. (Para 13, 14, 15)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
 & Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K.Tripathi, learned
Advocate holding brief of Sri N.K.Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri