# Ram Sajeevan Patel v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 291
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-02-21
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 1147 of 2014
- **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sajeevan-patel-v-state-of-u-p-42780
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Appointment-claim
based
upon
landacquired for construction of Hospital-based
upon government order-held-in view of Full
Bench decision-provisions of G.O. providing
preference
in
job-or
preferential
appointment-being contrary to provisions
of land acquisition Act neither appointment
nor preference can be given.

Held: Para-14
The Full Bench has given reasons for
coming to the conclusion that any such
Government Order, which provides benefit
of employment is contrary to the scheme as
provided under the Land Acquisition Act
and hence, would be invalid. Even in case,
any Government Order which provides that
preference in employment shall be given to
a person whose land has been acquired,
would be inconsistant with the intention of
the Parliament as contained in the Land
Acquisition Act. As such, I am of the
considered view that in view of the law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case
of
Ravindra
Kumar
vs.
Distirct
Magistrate, Agra and others (supra) the
petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit
in government employment on the ground
that his land has been acquired, even on the
basis
of
Government
Order
dated
15.06.1985.

Case Law discussed:
2005(1) UPLBEC 118

## Text

1 All] Ram Sajeevan Patal Vs. State of U.P.
291
improvements. The purpose is to primarily
and clearly to sift the chaff from the grain
and find out the truth from the testimony of
the witnesses. Where it does not affect the
core
of
the
prosecution
case
such
discrepancies should not be attached undue
significance. (Kuriya and Ors. Vs. State of
Raj.) (2012) 10 SCC 433.

21. Thus in view of the aforesaid
factual position and evidence on record
and circumstances this Court finds no
good ground to interfere with the findings
as recorded by the Sessions Judge,
Rampur and accordingly the judgement
dated 21st March, 1983 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial
No. 169 of 1982 convicting the accused
appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and
imposing sentence of life imprisonment is
affirmed and the present appeal is
accordingly dismissed.

22. A copy of this judgement be
communicated to the court below.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Service Single No. 1147 of 2014

Ram Sajeevan Patel..... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P....... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.M. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Appointment-claim
based
upon
landacquired for construction of Hospital-based
upon government order-held-in view of Full
Bench decision-provisions of G.O. providing
preference
in
job-or
preferential
appointment-being contrary to provisions
of land acquisition Act neither appointment
nor preference can be given.

Held: Para-14
The Full Bench has given reasons for
coming to the conclusion that any such
Government Order, which provides benefit
of employment is contrary to the scheme as
provided under the Land Acquisition Act
and hence, would be invalid. Even in case,
any Government Order which provides that
preference in employment shall be given to
a person whose land has been acquired,
would be inconsistant with the intention of
the Parliament as contained in the Land
Acquisition Act. As such, I am of the
considered view that in view of the law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case
of
Ravindra
Kumar
vs.
Distirct
Magistrate, Agra and others (supra) the
petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit
in government employment on the ground
that his land has been acquired, even on the
basis
of
Government
Order
dated
15.06.1985.

Case Law discussed:
2005(1) UPLBEC 118

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)

1. Notice on behalf of opposite
parties has been accepted by the learned
Chief Standing Counsel.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the opposite parties.

3. This writ petition has been filed
seeking following reliefs:-

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
mandamus
thereby
commanding/ directing the opposite parties
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
particularly the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to
consider and provide suitable employment to
the petitioner according to his qualification in
terms
of
Government
Order
dated
15.06.1985, as contained in Annexure No.1
to the writ petition.

(ii)to issue, any appropriate writ,
order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem, just and proper in the
nature and cirucmstances of the case.

(iii)to award the cost of the writ
petition in favour of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that land of the petitioner situated
at village-Kailey i.e. Gata No.133(M)
Rakba, measuring area 0-19-11 1⁄2 has
been acquired by the State Government
for the purpose of construction of a
Hospital known as OPEC Hospital
consisting 500 beds in village Kailey,
district Basti. The petitioner has applied
to the opposite parties for providing
suitable appointment in lieu of the land
acquired by them. The petitioner is having
qualification of High School, as such, he
is elible for the post of Malaria Inspector.
In this regard, the petitioner has preferred
representation
dated
15/16.06.2007,
which is still pending.

5. Further submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that as per
government order dated 15.06.1985, the
petitioner is entitled to get preference in
the appointment.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand submits that the question as to
whether a person whose land has been
acquired can be offerred any government
job, has been considered by full Bench of
this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar
vs. District Magistrate, Agra and others
reported in 2005 (1) UPLBEC 118, wherein
the Court has come to the conclusion that
since there is no provision in the Land
Acquisition Act to grant any such benefit of
giving employment, as such, the government
order to the effect providing benefit of
employment is invalid. It is submitted that
even a preference in employment on the
basis of land having been acquired cannot be
granted.

7. I have considered the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties
and gone through the record.

8. The Government Order dated
15.06.1985 provides that in case the land
has been acquiured for the purpose of
establishing the Industrial Uinit, the
family members of the owner of land
shall be given preference in the following
manner:-

(1) The dependants whose land has
been acquired

(2) Residents of concerning tehsil.

(3) Residents of concerning village.

(4) Residents of concerning State.

9. The questions which were
referred before the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs.
District Magistrate, Agra and others
(supra), read as under:-

"1. Whether Government Orders/
Circulars providing employment to one
member of a family whose land has been
acquired
(over
and
above
the
compensation awarded under law) is valid
or not?

2. Whether the qcquiring bodies for
whose benefit the land is acquired are
1 All] Ram Sajeevan Patal Vs. State of U.P.
293
bound by these Government Orders/
Circulars.

3. Whether a writ can be issued
directing the acquiring body to consider
the
claim
in
accordance
with the
Government Orders/ Circulars."

10. The Full Bench in paras-9,10 and
11 has observed that the Land Acquisition
Act takes care of the difficulties of a person
whose land has been acquired by granting
30% solatium under Section 23 (2) in
addition to the market value of the land
which has been acquired. The grant of
solatium in addition to the full market value
of the land has obviously been made to cater
to the difficulties of the person whose land
has been acquired. There is no provision in
the Land Acquisition Act to grant a job in
addition to the amounts specified in Section
23. Hence, any Government Order for
providing a job in addition to that is an our
opinon violative of the provisions of the
Land
Acquisition
Act
and
as
such
Government
Order
will
amount
to
amendment of Section 23, which will be
illegal.

Paras-9, 10 and 11 of the judgment
on reproduction read as under:-

"9. It is not denied that the petitioner
has
received
full
compensation
as
provided under Section 23 of the Land
Acquisition Act which means an amount
equal to full market value of the land with
interest as well as solatium under Section
23(2) which is equal to 30% of the market
value.
That
being
so
we
cannot
understand under which law a person can
get a job in addition to this compensation.

10. The Land Acquisition Act takes
care of the difficulties of a person whose
land has been acquired by granting 30%
solatium under Section 23(2) in addition
to the market value of the land which has
been acquired. Thus, if the market value
of the land acquired is Rs. 1 Lac, the
owner will get not only Rs. 1 Lac but an
additional Rs. 30,000/- i.e. he will get Rs.
1.30 Lac with interest at 12% from the
date of the notification under Section 4 to
the date of the award or the date of taking
possession whichever is earlier, vide
Section 23(1 -A).

11. This grant of solatium in addition to
the full market value of the land has obviously
been made to cater to the difficulties of the
person whose land has been acquired. There is
no provision in the Land Acquisition Act to
grant a job in addition to the amounts
specified
in
Section
23.
Hence
any
Government Order for providing a job in
addition to that is in our opinion violative of
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
for such a Government Order will amount to
amendment of Section 23, which will be
illegal."

11. The Full Bench has further held
that any Government Order providing for
any further benefit not mentioned in the
Land
Acquisition
Act
would
be
inconsistent
with
the
intention
of
Parliament as contained in the Land
Acquisition Act. As such, any such
Government Order would be violative of
the Land Acquisition Act and would
hence be invalid. Para-22 of the judgment
is reproduced as under:-

"22. There is no provision under the
Land Acquisition Act under which the
Circular dated 28.12.1974 could be issued.
Whatever compensation has to be given for
acquisition of the land is provided under the
Land Acquisition Act itself which is a selfcontained Code. Any G.O. providing for any
further benefit not mentioned in the Land
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Acquisition Act would be inconsistent with
the intention of Parliament as contained in
the Land Acquisition Act. Hence any such
GO. would be violative of the Land
Acquisition Act and would hence be invalid.
Such a G.O. will also violate Article 16 of
the Constitution as already mentioned
above."

12. The Full Bench has answered the
questions referred in the following
manner:-

"1.
The
Government
Orders/Circulars providing employment
to one member of a family of a person
whose land has been acquired (over and
above the compensation awarded under
the law) are invalid.

2. The acquiring body for whose
benefit the land is acquired are not bound
by such Government Order/Circular.

3.No writ can be issued directing the
acquiring body to consider the claim in
accordance
with
the
aforesaid
Order/Government Circular."

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
tried to submit that Government Order
dated 15.06.1985 was not before the Court
in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. District
Magistrate, Agra and others (supra). It is
also submitted that in the Government
Order dated 15.06.1985 only a preference is
to be given and it is not necessary that the
appointment is to be given to the person
whose land has been acquired.

14. The Full Bench has given
reasons for coming to the conclusion that
any such Government Order, which
provides
benefit
of
employment
is
contrary to the scheme as provided under
the Land Acquisition Act and hence,
would be invalid. Even in case, any
Government Order which provides that
preference in employment shall be given
to a person whose land has been acquired,
would be inconsistant with the intention
of the Parliament as contained in the Land
Acquisition Act. As such, I am of the
considered view that in view of the law
laid down by the Full Bench of this Court
in the case of Ravindra Kumar vs. Distirct
Magistrate, Agra and others (supra) the
petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit
in government employment on the ground
that his land has been acquired, even on
the basis of Government Order dated
15.06.1985.

15. The writ petition being devoid of
merit is hereby dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1715 of 2000

Vijay Prakash Pandey..... Petitioner
Versus
Inspector General of Police H.Q. Alld. &
Ors. Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Dwivedi, Sri P.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Art.-226-family
pension-claimed
by
petitioner
being
adopted
son-adoption
took
place
on
11.10.97-adoptive father died on 12.12.97adoption deed registered on 16.01.98 by
adoptive
mother-who
also
died
on
16.12.2002-till her death she got family
pension-when
adoptive
father
diedpetitioner was only six year old-at the time