# Rameshwar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 872
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-05-27
- **Case number:** WRIT-C No. 38663 of 2008
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rameshwar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43217
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Land Acquisition Act-Section 18-Referencemaintainability-on allegation of fraud-even-if
compensation received-reference can not be
rejected-order quashed-with consequential
direction given.
Held: Para-9
We are of the considered opinion that in
cases where execution of agreement
under the Rules, 1997 is questioned on
allegations of fraud, the application for
reference
need
be
entertained
and
referred to the Court concerned for
examined at the first instance as to
whether the agreement is vitiated by
fraud or not. It is only when the first
issue is answered in affirmative that the
other questions namely adequacy of
compensation to the petitioners can be
gone into.

## Text

872
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for a different relief. We further find that
issues
raised
in the petition
have
important significance for the cause of
education in the State, the writ petition
must, therefore, be entertained. The
objection of the State, in this regard,
stands rejected.
31. We may also record that a response
to the facts as stated in the writ petition and
the prima-facie findings which have been
recorded by this Court, shall be made by
means of a personal affidavit by the Chief
Secretary of the State of U.P.. The original
records on the basis of which these three
persons were appointed as Chairman and
Members of the Selection Board, shall be
produced before this Court by an officer, not
below the rank of Joint Secretary on the next
date.
32. Learned Chief Standing Counsel
prays for and is allowed 3 weeks' time to
file Counter Affidavit. Issue notice to
respondent nos.4 to 6, who may also file
counter affidavit within the same period.
Steps be taken within five days. Petitioner
will have one week thereafter to file
Rejoinder Affidavit.
List this petition on 10.8.2015.
In the meantime, respondent Nos.4, 5
& 6 are restrained from holding any
selection in their capacity as Chairman
and Members of the Board. However,
their salary is not being interfered with, at
this Stage.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
WRIT-C No. 38663 of 2008
Rameshwar & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vishnu Sahai, Sri B. Dayal, Sri
Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Sri C.K. Parekh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pradeep Kumar, Sri R.P. Singh
U.P. Land Acquisition Act-Section 18-Referencemaintainability-on allegation of fraud-even-if
compensation received-reference can not be
rejected-order quashed-with consequential
direction given.
Held: Para-9
We are of the considered opinion that in
cases where execution of agreement
under the Rules, 1997 is questioned on
allegations of fraud, the application for
reference
need
be
entertained
and
referred to the Court concerned for
examined at the first instance as to
whether the agreement is vitiated by
fraud or not. It is only when the first
issue is answered in affirmative that the
other questions namely adequacy of
compensation to the petitioners can be
gone into.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)
1. Land holdings of the petitioners
before this Court was admittedly acquired
under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after
referred to as the 'Act, 1894') on
31.10.2001 issued under Section 4 of the
Act, 1894 followed by notification dated
31.01.2002 under Section 6 of the Act,
1894. Possession of the acquired land was
taken on 23.03.2002.
2. From the records of the present
petition it is apparent that before the
2 All] Rameshwar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
873
Award could be made in respect of the
acquired land, the petitioner is stated to have
entered into an Agreement with the
respondent authority under the U.P. Land
Acquisition (Determination of Compensation
and Declaration of Award by Agreement)
Rules, 1997 (herein after referred to as the
'Rules, 1997'). In terms of the Agreement
entered
into
between
the
parties,
a
compensation of Rs.69,32,848/- was paid to
the petitioner on 22.03.2002. This money is
stated to have been accepted by the petitioner
under protest.
3. The Award was made on
21.07.2002. Within one month of the said
Award,
the
petitioners
made
an
application wherein it was stated that they
had been asked to sign/put thumb
impression on certain blank papers by
respondent authorities on the assurance
that the money which is to be paid to
them
is
only
80%
of
the
total
compensation as and when the Award is
made, the remaining 20% shall also be
paid to them. But after publication of the
Award, the petitioners found that such
assurance was false and that the money
which has been received by them is being
taken as the entire compensation. This
according to the petitioner amounts to
fraud and poor farmers like the petitioners
have been deceived by the respondents in
the matter of compensation.
4. The petitioners, therefore, made
an application before the Special Land
Acquisition Officer on 23.08.2003 for a
reference being made under Section 18 of
the Act, 1894. This application of the
petitioners has been rejected under the
impugned order dated 23.06.2008.
5. Counsel for the petitioners at the
very outset stated that it is no doubt true
that the persons who accept compensation
in terms of the Rules, 1997 have no right
to make any application under Section 18
of the Act, 1894 for a reference but where
the payment of compensation is vitiated
on the ground of fraud then such
restriction
in
the
making
of
the
application for reference would not be
applicable. It is his case that the
Reference Application had to be granted
by the officer concerned and it was for the
competent court to decide the correctness
or otherwise of the allegations made by
the petitioner qua the amount paid under
the Rules, 1997 being vitiated because of
fraud or not. Therefore, the order
impugned is bad.
6.
Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh,
counsel for the respondents disputes the
correctness of the stand so taken. He submits
that the petitioners had accepted the money
in terms of the Agreement as early as on
22.03.2002. For fifteen months they kept
silent and there was no protest in the matter
of compensation so paid. It is only when the
Award was made on 21.07.2003 that the
petitioners have grown wiser and started
claiming additional amount on a concocted
story. He has placed reliance upon a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Ram
Chander
and
others
vs.
Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Varanasi reported in 2003 (6) AWC, 5222
for the proposition no application for
reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894
could be maintained by a person who had
accepted the compensation under the Rules,
1997 without protest. He, therefore, submits
that, in the facts of the case, there is no error
in the order refusing to make the reference.
7. In support of the proposition he
had also referred to the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of State of
874
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Karnataka
vs.
Sangappa
Dyavappa
Biradar and Others reported in 2005 (4)
SCC, 264.
8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having gone through the
records of the present writ petition, we are
of the considered opinion that the legal
position with regards to the person
accepting compensation in terms of the
Agreement under Rules, 1997 having no
right to maintain a reference application
under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 is well
settled from the judgment relied upon by
the counsel for the respondent. But at the
same time if there are allegation of fraud,
what is the remedy available to the tenure
holders?
9. We are of the considered opinion
that
in
cases
where
execution
of
agreement under the Rules, 1997 is
questioned on allegations of fraud, the
application
for
reference
need
be
entertained and referred to the Court
concerned for examined at the first
instance as to whether the agreement is
vitiated by fraud or not. It is only when
the first issue is answered in affirmative
that the other questions namely adequacy
of compensation to the petitioners can be
gone into. If the first issue is answered in
negative, the amount of compensation
paid in terms of the agreement would be
final and binding between the parties.
10. For the reasons recorded above,
the order passed by the authority dated
23.06.2008 (Annexure-4 to the petition)
cannot be legally sustained and is hereby
quashed. Let the petitioners make a
reference application under Section 18 of
the Act, 1894 within one month from
today along with a certified copy of this
order. The authority competent to hear the
reference shall first adjudicate the issue as
to whether the alleged agreement entered
into between the parties under the Rules,
1997 is vitiated because of fraud or not. In
case the answer to the said issue is in
affirmative then the authority concern
would proceed to hear the reference on
merits. If the answer is in negative the
chapter
shall
stand
close
and
the
application under Section 18 of the Act,
1894 shall stand rejected accordingly.
11. So far as the number of plots is
concerned, we are not expressing any
opinion. The parties are at liberty to
agitate
their claim in the reference
application.
12. Writ petition is allowed subject
to the observations/direction made herein
above.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 57528 of 2013
Balveer Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Upendra Upadhyay
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Brij Kumar Yadav, Sri Munna
Babu, Sri Ram Murat Singh
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Allotment of
fair price shop-clause 10 of G.O. 31.10.2002allotment
in
favor
of
respondent-4challenged-she being illiterate and without
proposal of open meeting of Gram Sabha-