# Santosh Kumar Jain & another v. State of U.P. through Collector, Aligarh and another - **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 78 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-09-01 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20464 of 1996 - **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-jain-another-v-state-of-u-p-through-collector-aligarh-and-another-40295 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Sri D. Gupta Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya Sri P.P. Srivastava Sri Hemant Kumar Sri Y.D. Sharma Sri J.P. Gupta Sri S.N. Upadhyaya S.C. http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Santosh Kumar Jain and another V. State of U.P. through Collector and another 79 U.P. urban planning & Development Act 1973-S-28-A-Notice for demand of compounding charges-challenged by petitioner who raised the lock factory for commercial purpose-while the land was acquired for residential purposecallussion between Aligarh Development Authority and the petitioner provedCourt/taking service notice-emposed fine of Rs.100000/- to be received on arrear of land revenue and to vaate the land within 15 days. Held: Para 21 & 22 The land in question is earmarked in the Master Plan of Aligarh for residential purpose, and hence its allotment for a factory was wholly illegal and collusive. This case reveals totally fraud and collusion on the part of the petitioners. Since total fraud has been committed by the petitioners in illegally occupying the land of the Aligarh Development Authority, we impose a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(one lac) on the petitioners for having committed gross illegality. The petitioners shall pay the said amount to the Aligarh Development Authority within two months from today failing which it will be realized by the D.M. as arrears of land revenue and then paid to the respondent no. 2. Petitioners must vacate the land in dispute forthwith failing which they will be evicted by Police force. Case Law: 2002 (1) UPLBEC -444 2000 (7) SCC-22 1999 (6) SCC- 464 AND 532 AIR 1974 SC-2177 ## Text http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 78 10. In para 12 of the said judgment it has been held "Having reached the conclusion about the invalidity of the impugned appointments made by the Chief Justice, we can not, however, refuse to recognize the consequence that involves on uprooting the appellants." Para 13 of the said authority is quoted below:- "There is good sense in the plea put forward for the appellants. The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that problem that motivated us in allowing the review petitions. It may be recalled that the appellants are in service for the past 10 years. They are either graduates or double graduates or post graduates as against the minimum qualification of S.S.L.C required for Second Division Clerks in which cadre they were originally recruited. Some of them seem to have earned higher qualification by hard work during their service. Some of them in the normal course have been promoted to higher cadre. They are now overaged for entry into any other service. It seems that most of them cannot get the benefit of age relaxation under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. One could only imagine their untold miseries and of their family if they are left at the midstream. Indeed, it would be an act of cruelty at this stage to ask them to appear for written test and viva voce to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for fresh selection (See Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (1982) I S.C.R 320 at 326: (A.I.R 1981 SC 1777 at p.1780))." 11. In view of the above, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularization and consequential benefits, if regularized, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Commission Act, as amended from time to time. Salary already deducted in pursuance of order of D.I.O.S dated 26.7.2002, shall not be refundable to the petitioners. Appropriate orders with regard to regularization by competent authority/body must be passed within six months from the production of certified copy of this order. Accordingly writ petition is allowed as aforesaid. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20464 of 1996 Santosh Kumar Jain & another ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. through Collector, Aligarh and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.N. Tripathi Sri M.K. Gupta Sri U.N. Sharma Sri V.K. Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D. Gupta Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya Sri P.P. Srivastava Sri Hemant Kumar Sri Y.D. Sharma Sri J.P. Gupta Sri S.N. Upadhyaya S.C. http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Santosh Kumar Jain and another V. State of U.P. through Collector and another 79 U.P. urban planning & Development Act 1973-S-28-A-Notice for demand of compounding charges-challenged by petitioner who raised the lock factory for commercial purpose-while the land was acquired for residential purposecallussion between Aligarh Development Authority and the petitioner provedCourt/taking service notice-emposed fine of Rs.100000/- to be received on arrear of land revenue and to vaate the land within 15 days. Held: Para 21 & 22 The land in question is earmarked in the Master Plan of Aligarh for residential purpose, and hence its allotment for a factory was wholly illegal and collusive. This case reveals totally fraud and collusion on the part of the petitioners. Since total fraud has been committed by the petitioners in illegally occupying the land of the Aligarh Development Authority, we impose a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-(one lac) on the petitioners for having committed gross illegality. The petitioners shall pay the said amount to the Aligarh Development Authority within two months from today failing which it will be realized by the D.M. as arrears of land revenue and then paid to the respondent no. 2. Petitioners must vacate the land in dispute forthwith failing which they will be evicted by Police force. Case Law: 2002 (1) UPLBEC -444 2000 (7) SCC-22 1999 (6) SCC- 464 AND 532 AIR 1974 SC-2177 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. This writ petition was initially filed for a mandamus restraining respondent no. 1 from demolishing the construction over the plot nos. 2339 and 2340 at Pala Road, Pargana and tahsil koli, District Aligarh and from dispossessing the petitioners. The petitioners also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2, Aligarh Development Authority (ADA) to issue a letter of allotment to the petitioner in respect of the said land as per the approval of the Vice Chairman dated 20.9.1995. By a subsequent amendment the petitioners have also prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of respondent no. 4 dated 23.10.2001 as published in the Newspapaer (Dainik Jagran) dated 1.11.2001 vide (Annexure18 to the petition) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have alleged that they purchased the aforesaid plots by means of a registered sale-deed dated 19.9.1991 from one Onkar Prasad Garg. A true copy of the sale-deed is AnnexureI to the petition. The petitioners have alleged in para 4 that before purchasing the land they made an enquiry in order to satisfy themselves about the ownership of Onkar Prasad Garg. 3. It is alleged in para 5 of the petition that after obtaining the sale-deed the petitioners took steps to get deep pits filled and made constructions by investing more than Rs. 5 lacs. It is alleged that petitioners have erected full fledged factory on the said plots in the name and style of M/s Alka Locks Factory and which covers an area of 622.33 Sq. meters of land. The remaining land measuring 1365.67 Sq. meters is still vacant over which the petitioners propose to make residential houses for themselves and their employees. 4. It is alleged in para 6 of the petition that sometime in 1995 the http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 80 petitioners were informed by some persons that the land which they have purchased have been acquired by the Aligarh Development Authority (ADA) and thereafter the petitioners made enquiries and came to know that the aforesaid plots had been acquired by the respondent no. 2, A.D.A. in 1985. It is alleged that Sri Onkar Prasad Garg played fraud on the petitioners and concealed the fact that the land had been acquired by the Aligarh Development Authority. The petitioners bonafide purchased the plots for valuable consideration and invested huge money thereon. In the meantime the respondent no. 2 got a survey conducted and found the factory existing on the site, and threatened to demolish the same. Hence the petitioners wrote a letter dated 19.8.1995 to the respondent no. 2, Aligarh Development Authority praying that the land be allotted to them for residential purposes of the staffs and management of the company and that they are ready to pay the market value. The petitioners also enclosed a cheque of Rs. 5 lacs in favour of respondent no. 2 as earnest money. A true copy of the letter dated 19.8.1995 is Annexure-2 to the petition. 5. It is alleged in paragraphs 9 to 13 that the Secretary, Aligarh Development Authority called for a report from the Assistant Engineer/Assistant Town Planner, Balram Singh, who got the site inspected and submitted his report. In that report it was stated if the factory is demolished and the land is reallotted then about 40% of the land would be utilized in constrcting road, park etc. and the Aligarh Development Authority would be able sell only 60% of the total area. However, if the land is allotted to the petitioners then the Aligarh Development Authority would be making huge profits. Hence recommendation was made in view of the allotment in favour of the petitioners. True copy of the report is Annexure-3 to the petition. Thereupon the Secretary, Aligarh Development Authority made a recommendation to the Vice Chairman to accept the proposal for allotting the land to the petitioners in terms of the report of Sri Balram Singh, vide Annexure-5. True copy of the endorsement made by the Vice Chairman is Annexure-6 to the petition. The Vice Chairman made a noting on the file on 20.9.1995 that he agreed with the proposal to allot the land in favour of the petitioners and the aforesaid resolution be placed for approval of the Board. A true copy of the endorsement dated 20.9.1995 by the Vice Chairman is Annexure-9 to the petition. In the meantime it is alleged that the respondent no. 2 encashed Rs. 5 lacs sent by the petitioners. 6. In para 24 it is stated that on 5.6.1996 the Executive Engineer, Aligarh Development Authority came to the factory premises and informed the petitioners he had been directed to get the factory demolished. The petitioners contacted the Secretary, Aligarh Development Authority who told them that the Commissioner, Agra Division Agra who was also the Chairman of the Aligarh Development Authority directed for demolition of the factory premises. 7. It is alleged that a large number of workers are working in the factory and valuable machinery worth more than Rs.50 lacs alongwith raw material is lying there. Since there was imminent threat of demolition, this writ petition was filed. By an amendment application which has been allowed the petitioners have prayed for http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Santosh Kumar Jain and another V. State of U.P. through Collector and another 81 quashing of the order dated 23.10.2001 vide Annexure-18 to the petition. 8. By the amendment the petitioners have mentioned that they made an application dated 20.12.2000 to settle the matter, but they received a letter dated 9.4.2001 from the Secretary, Aligarh Development Authority stating that petitioners should pay sum of Rs.1,04,03,204.00/- as compounding fee and then the allotment will be done in their favour vide Annexure-16 to the petition. It is alleged in 35 (c) that this demand is wholly arbitrary and it does not reveal how the above figure has been reached. The petitioners have seen an order dated 23.10.2001 published in Dainik Jagran dated 1.11.2001 under Section 28-A of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 stating that the petitioners have made illegal constructions on the land of the Aligarh Development Authority and have constructed a Lock factory there and the same should be sealed forthwith. Aggrieved this petition has been filed. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Aligarh Development Authority and we have perused the same. 9. In paragraph 4 of the same it is stated that the plots in question were acquired by the Aligarh Development Authority vide notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, copies of which are Annexures CA-I and 2. In pursuance of these notifications the land in question was transferred to the Aligarh Development Authority on 23.11.1985. Photostat copy of the document showing delivery of possession to the Aligarh Development Authority on 23.11.1985 is Annexure - CA 3. The owner of the land Sri Onkar Prasad Garg filed a Writ Petition No. 5784 of 1983 in this Court challenging the acquisition proceedings. However, that writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 17.7.1985 vide Annexure CA-4. The compensation has also been paid to Sri Onkar Prasad Garg and he had been told that there was no title left with him which could be sold to the petitioners. 10. It is alleged in para 6 of the counter affidavit that the entire exercise appeared to be a fraudulent act done by the petitioners in connivance with the earlier owner. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that the petitioners knowingly constructed a factory over the land which had already vested in the Aligarh Development Authority without seeking its permission. There are about 800 residential houses of the Aligarh Development Authority besides other private residential houses in the vicinity of the petitioners' factory. Similar writ petition of Hari Singh being writ petition number 23595 of 1995 and Ratnakar Arya being writ petition number 19491 of 1995 were dismissed by this Court on 30.8.1995 vide Annexure-CA 6 to the counter affidavit. 11. It is alleged in para 8 that the sum of Rs. 5 lacs has been refunded to the petitioners by cheque dated 2.7.1996. In the para 9 it is stated that the allotment of the plots was never approved by the Board. On the contrary, the matter was placed before the Board in its meeting held on 30.3.1996. It was resolved therein that grave irregularities had been committed in dealing with the land on which Alka Factory was built. The said land had been acquired for residential purpose, and hence construction and http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 82 continuance of the factory could not have been permitted. It was also stated in the resolution that acceptance of Rs. 5 lacs for converting the land use from residential land to factory purpose was a grave irregularity, and this was done by the then Secretary, A.D.A. without approval of the Vice Chairman. Hence the money was ordered to be returned and an enquiry ordered, and demolition proceedings were also ordered. A true copy of the resolution of the Board dated 30.3.1996 is Annexure-CA 7 to the counter affidavit. 12. The relevant resolution is the second last one in Annexure-CA-7, which reads as follows:- "izkf/kdj.k dh Hkwfe ij voS/k :i ls cuh vydk QSDVah dks Hkwfe vkoaVu ds laca/k esaA" fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk izLrqr fd, x, izLrko dks lfpo vyhx< fodkl izkf/kdj.k }kjk i