# Ravindra Pratap Singh 740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 739
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-05-20
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29757 of 2013
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Naheed Ara Moonis
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-pratap-singh-740-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42967
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-300-APetitioner's land 1989 sq. meter utilized
for
widening
road-without
resorting
acquisition
proceeding-despite
of
repeated
direction
correct
area
not
disclosed-from report 1989 sq. meter
found further utilized-in view of law
developed by Apex Court-land can not be
released-compensation
at
commercial
rate fixed-with interest of 12% interest
till actual payment within 3 month-in
default interest @ 18% shall be payable
with cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

Held: Para-13
In view of the aforesaid, when from the
original record also, which is available
with the learned Standing Counsel,
nothing could be shown to the Court to
prove that the width of the road, as it
existed in 1955, remained the same even
after upgradation and widening, and it is
well established from the record that
1989 sq. meters of the land had been
utilized in the year 2003 for widening of
the road, we are of the opinion that the
petitioner would be entitled for being
paid compensation, at least at the rate at
which the value of said land has been
assessed
by
the
report
dated
31.10.2008.

Case Law discussed:
2013(2) AWC 1795

## Text

2 All] Ravindra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
739
recording brief abstracts of those powers
of attorney which are authenticated under
section 33(a). Regulation 258 clarifies
that when a power of attorney is
registered, it has to be copied in full in the
register like any other document.

23. The Registration (Amendment)
Bill, 20135 was introduced in the Rajya
Sabha to amend the provisions of the
Registration
Act,
1908.
The
Bill
contemplates inter alia the insertion of a
specific provision in section 17 of the
Registration Act, 1908 to the following
effect:

"(i) power of attorny authorising
transfer of immovable property with or
without consideration."

24. The statement of objects and
reasons accompanying the introduction of
the Bill in fact highlights the reason why
it has been considered necessary to
propose the amendment to section 17 by
providing compulsory registration of
powers of attorney :

"At present the Power of Attorney is
optionally registrable. Many unscrupulous
elements have found an ingenious way to
avoid the registration and transfer the
immovable properties through this Power
of Attorney. The Act does not contain the
provision
for
recovery
of
deficit
registration fees or refund of the excess
registration
fees
collected
by
the
Registering Officer."

25.

The
Bill
is
pending
consideration. The Bill, when passed into
law would answer the pressing need to
ensure the due protection of prospective
buyers across the country while entering
into transactions for the sale and purchase
of immovable property when they deal
with a person who holds a power of
attorney. The proposed amendment is, if
we may say so, a step in the right
direction and commends itself as a
measure which would obviate a serious
loophole that has been exploited by
unscrupulous persons at the cost of
unaware purchasers.

26. As the law stands today in the
country, and for the reasons which we
have indicated above, it is evident that the
circular that was issued by the Inspector
General of Registration on 3 July 2013
requiring that powers of attorney be
maintained in Book 1 was contrary to the
specific provisions of the Registration Act
and was correctly rectified by the
subsequent circular dated 12 February
2014 of the Inspector General of
Registration.

27. For these reasons, we are unable
to interfere in the exercise of writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution but while concluding, would
express our appreciation of the able
assistance which has been rendered to the
Court both by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
by the learned Standing Counsel.

28. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29757 of 2013

Ravindra Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manu Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-300-APetitioner's land 1989 sq. meter utilized
for
widening
road-without
resorting
acquisition
proceeding-despite
of
repeated
direction
correct
area
not
disclosed-from report 1989 sq. meter
found further utilized-in view of law
developed by Apex Court-land can not be
released-compensation
at
commercial
rate fixed-with interest of 12% interest
till actual payment within 3 month-in
default interest @ 18% shall be payable
with cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

Held: Para-13
In view of the aforesaid, when from the
original record also, which is available
with the learned Standing Counsel,
nothing could be shown to the Court to
prove that the width of the road, as it
existed in 1955, remained the same even
after upgradation and widening, and it is
well established from the record that
1989 sq. meters of the land had been
utilized in the year 2003 for widening of
the road, we are of the opinion that the
petitioner would be entitled for being
paid compensation, at least at the rate at
which the value of said land has been
assessed
by
the
report
dated
31.10.2008.

Case Law discussed:
2013(2) AWC 1795

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The case of the petitioner is that
he, along with his brothers, is the owner
of Khata no. 542 situated in village Koda,
Jahanabad,
Tehsil
Bindki,
District
Fatehpur. It is not disputed that a road,
maintained by the U.P.Public Works
Department, passes through the plot of the
petitioner
which
was
constructed
sometime in the year 1955. According to
the petitioner, only 400 meters of land
from plot no. 542, was utilized for
construction of the said road which would
be clear from the records of the revenue
department and there is no grievance
regarding the same.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is
that in the year 2003, when the project for
widening of the said road was carried out
under a scheme of the World Bank, a
further area of 1989 sq. meters of land of
plot no. 542 was utilized for such
widening,
without
resorting
to
the
procedure for acquisition under the Land
Acquisition
Act
or
following
any
procedure prescribed by law, or on
payment of any compensation to the
petitioner and his brothers. It is contended
that eversince the taking over of the land
of the petitioner, he has been running
from pillar to post but no compensation
has been paid. He has thus filed this writ
petition with the prayer for a direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondents to pay the compensation for
the land of Khata no. 542 situated in
village
Koda,
Jahanabad,
District
Fatehpur which has been taken by the
respondents for widening of the road and
also pay 18% interest thereon.

3. We have heard Sri Manu Khare,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents and have perused the
record. Pleadings between the parties
have been exchanged and with consent of
the learned counsel for the parties, this
writ petition is being disposed of at the
admission stage itself.
2 All] Ravindra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
741

4. On 24.5.2013 a Division Bench of
this Court had passed the following
order:-

"On hearing the parties, we adjourn
this matter for six weeks. In the
meantime, learned counsel for the State
shall seek instructions from the Secretary,
Public Works Department representing
respondent no.1-State of U.P. and from
respondent nos. 8 and 9 Superintending
Engineer
and
Executive
Engineer
concerned.

We direct respondent nos. 8 and 9 to
get the public road, which has been
allegedly repaired or renovated, measured
scientifically to find out whether the land
of the petitioner has been utilised for the
purpose of said road or not. If the
petitioner's land in Gata No.542 has been
utilised, then the extent to which such
land was utilised for the purpose of road
should be measured and shown in a
scientifically prepared map and value of
such land should be calculated as per
Government policy. In case, the land of
the petitioner has not been utilised for the
road, then respondent nos.8 and 9 shall
mention this fact clearly in their report.
Such report should be made available to
learned counsel for the State by the next
date.

List the matter after six weeks in the
cause list."

5. Respondents no. 8 and 9 in this
writ petition are Superintending Engineer,
World Bank Project P.W.D. Kanpur
Nagar and Executive Engineer, Nirman
Khand-IV Kanpur Nagar respectively. In
compliance thereof, after nearly one year
an affidavit has been filed today, which is
sworn by Sri Gopal Raj Swaroop,
Assistant Engineer, World Bank Division,
Public Works Department, Lucknow. The
same shall be dealt with at the relevant
stage.

6. Besides the fact that in the
revenue records only 400 sq. meters land
of plot no. 542 has been shown as having
been utilized for construction of road,
which fact is not disputed by the
respondents, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the
following communications/reports:-

(1) Communication dated 26.7.2008
(Annexure-4 to the writ petition) of the
Executive Engineer to the petitioner,
stating that they have written to the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Bindki to submit
his report with regard to the utilization of
the land belonging to the petitioner for
widening of road and construction of the
culvert and that only after receipt of such
report, the matter relating to payment of
compensation to the petitioner would be
considered.

(2) The report of the Revenue
Inspector dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure-5
to the writ petition and Annexure-2 to the
Rejoinder affidavit) wherein it has been
categorically stated that beyond the area
of 400 sq. maters of Khata no. 542 which
has been shown in the records for the
purpose of road, an additional area of
1989 sq. meters of the said plot has been
utilized for widening of road, for which
compensation is to be paid to the
petitioner. In the said report it is also
mentioned that the circle rate for
residential plots of the area is Rs. 1500/-
per sq. meter, according to which the
compensation
would
come
to
Rs.
29,83,500/-; whereas the commercial rate
is Rs. 1900/- per sq. meter according to
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which the compensation would come to
Rs. 37,79,100/-. The said report has been
duly forwarded by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate to the Executive Engineer on
14.11.2008.

(3) Communication dated 2.5.2009
(Anneuxre-6 to the writ petition) by
Sugam International Sansthan (which is
the body responsible for supervising the
work of widening/up-gradation of road
being carried out under the scheme of the
World Bank) which acknowledges the
taking over of 1989 sq. meters of land of
the petitioner for widening of the road,
and mentions that it has been duly
certified by the Sub Divisional Magistrate
also, for which the compensation has yet
not been paid to the petitioner.

(4) Communication dated 7.9.2012
(Annexure-13 to the writ petition) from
the District Magistrate to the Additional
District Magistrate requiring the latter to
initiate proceedings for payment of
compensation in accordance with the
rules and the law. Acknowledgement of
communication of Sugam International
Sansthan and of the Executive Engineer,
with regard to taking over 1989 sq. meters
land of the petitioner has been done in this
letter.

(5) Communication dated 8.9.2012
of the Additional District Magistrate,
Kanpur to the Superintending Engineer,
World Bank Scheme, respondent no.8, for
taking necessary action with regard to
payment of compensation.

7. In the light of the above, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the matter relating to
payment
of
compensation,
though
acknowledged by the relevant authorities,
is moving from one desk of the
government
and
semi-government
organizations to another, without the
petitioner getting any relief, despite more
than a decade having passed. It is
contended that from the record it is
absolutely clear that additional 1989 sq.
meters of the land of the petitioner has
been taken away for widening of the road
without any consent of the petitioner or
without resorting to the procedure for
acquiring the land, and as such the
petitioner ought to be paid compensation
for the land taken, along with interest and
damages.

8. This Court had earlier directed the
learned Standing Counsel to produce the
original record relating to the case, which
has been made available. From the record,
learned Standing Counsel does not
dispute
the
issuance
of
the
communications which have been relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, mention of which has been
made hereinabove. It is also not disputed
that revenue record shows only 400 sq.
meters of plot no. 542 to have been
utilized for construction of road. All that
he states is that the length of the road
passing through the plot of the petitioner
is 159.1 meters and if only 400 sq. meters
is the area utlised for the road, the width
of the road would be only about 2.5
meter, which is not possible. He thus
submits that since the road was wide
enough for being a highway since 1955, it
has wrongly been recorded in the revenue
records that only 400 sq. meter is the area
used for the road which passes through
the plot of the petitioner. The affidavit of
compliance which has been filed today is
not in terms of the order dated 24.5.2013
passed by this Court. No scientifically
carried out measurement of land which
2 All] Ravindra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
743
has been taken or utilized from the plot of
the petitioner for the purpose of road
construction has been given and all that
has been stated is that no land from the
plot of the petitioner has been utilized for
the up-gradation of road, as the road was
always as wide as it now is.

9. Learned Standing Counsel has,
however, not been able to explain that if it
is taken to be correct that there has been
no widening of the road, then how and
why the reports of various authorities with
regard to utilization of additional 1989 sq.
meters of land of the petitioner for the
purposes of the widening of road have
been submitted.

10. Land can be taken over by the
State only in accordance with law. The
same may be either by resorting to the
process of the Land Acquisition Act or
through a sale deed executed by the land
owner. Proper compensation ought to be
paid to the land owner before he is
deprived of or made to part with his land.
The might of the State should not be used
for grabbing land from land owners and
thereby refuse to pay compensation, even
when the record show that additional land
has been taken from the land owner. All
citizens, and more particularly the State
authorities, are expected to follow the
law. The law is clear that no person can
be deprived of his property without
following the due process of law.

11. In the present case, what appears
to have been done is that for the purposes
of widening of road the land of the
petitioner has been utilized. Later on,
even when the authorities realised that
additional 1989 sq. meters of land of the
petitioner had been taken for such
purpose, regarding which reports of the
officials exist on record, they tried to
justify that the total land had already been
taken from the petitioner initially when
the road was constructed in the year 1955.
Howsoever laudable or important the
purpose of acquisition of land may be, the
process of law cannot be given a go bye.
The respondents in this case clearly
appear to have used their authority against
a simple land owner to take his land and
thereafter not even bother to compensate
him.

12. From the record it is established
that additional 1989 sq. meters land of the
petitioner was utilized in the year 2003 for
widening of the road. Learned Standing
Counsel does not dispute the fact that the
location of the land in question, falls in
commercial area. In the counter affidavit,
nothing has been stated with regard to the
value of the land, which would be Rs.
37,79,100/- (as per the circle rate of Rs.
1900/- per sq. meter) as per the report dated
31.10.2008 of the Revenue Inspector, which
has been duly forwarded by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate.

13. In view of the aforesaid, when from
the original record also, which is available
with the learned Standing Counsel, nothing
could be shown to the Court to prove that the
width of the road, as it existed in 1955,
remained the same even after upgradation and
widening, and it is well established from the
record that 1989 sq. meters of the land had
been utilized in the year 2003 for widening of
the road, we are of the opinion that the
petitioner would be entitled for being paid
compensation, at least at the rate at which the
value of said land has been assessed by the
report dated 31.10.2008.

14. The Apex Court in the case of
Bhimandas Ambwani vs. Delhi Power Co.
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ltd. 2013(2) AWC 1795, has, while
considering a case where the facts were such
that the landowner was dispossessed without
resorting to any law of Land Acquisition Act,
held that such person would not be entitled to
restoration of possession as full-fledged
residential colony had been constructed on
the land in question but directed the
respondents to make an award under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
treating section 4 notification to have been
issued as on the date of the judgment of the
Supreme Court which was 12.2.2013. In the
present case, if the land is treated to have
been acquired as on date for the purposes of
valuation for payment of compensation, it
would have to be assessed under the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
And Transparency In Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
However, keeping in view that the valuation
of 1989 sq. meters of land of the petitioner
has been assessed at Rs. 37,79,100/- by the
report dated 31.8.2008 prepared by the
respondent-authorities and the petitioner does
not object to such valuation, we would not be
inclined to remit the matter for further
valuation of the property as more than ten
years have already lapsed since the petitioner
has been deprived of his property without
being paid any compensation and directing
for further proceeding for valuation, in the
aforesaid facts, would be further delaying the
determination and payment of compensation.

15. Accordingly, we direct the
respondents to pay compensation of Rs.
37,79,100/- to the petitioner along with
12% interest from 31.10.2008 till the date
of payment, if the payment is made within
three months from today, and if not, then
the respondents shall be liable to pay
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from
31.10.2008 till the date of actual payment.
In the facts of this case, since the
petitioner has been running from pillar to
post for payment of compensation of his
land which has been taken over and
utilized by the respondents more than a
decade
ago,
and
that
too
without
following any procedure of law, we are of
the opinion that the petitioner would also
be entitled for payment of cost, which this
Court assesses at Rs. 50,000/-. The said
amount shall also be paid to the petitioner
within the aforesaid period of three
months.

16. The writ petition stands allowed
to the extent indicated above.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.06.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM SURAT RAM
(MAURYA), J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31868 of 2014
along with W.P. No. 32259 of 2014, W.P. No.
32264 of 2014, and W.P. No. 32292 of 2014

Ajay Pratap Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dr. D.K. Tiwari, Sri Shashi Kant Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Sri Ajay
Kumar

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Eligibilityinformation given by candidates-online as
well off line application form-Combined
State Upper Subordinate Services(Regular
Recruitment) Examination 2013-column 13
provides-special
qualification-petitioner
given post graduate-while for Designated
officer
minimum
cut
off
of
general