# Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1279
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-06
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 58399 of 2013
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Vivek Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45168
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. The land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Section 11 - award - acquisition is final
and conclusive - land acquired vests with
the Government - No provision under the
Land Acquisition Act or any other law
which directs for re-conveyance of the
acquired land to the tenure holders for
any
reason
-Government
Order
supplements the statutory provisions - no
overriding effect upon the statutory
provisions - if the Act does not provide
for the re-conveyance of the acquired
land to the erstwhile owners for any
reason, it cannot be done by means of a
simple Government Order - Petitioner
directed to pursue his remedy before the
appropriate authority. (Para 9, 10 & 15)

Land acquired under the provision of the Land
Acquisition Act not utilized by the Development
Authority for the industrial purpose - Petitioner
submitted representation before the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority for the
lease back of the land in view of the
Government Order. (Para 2, 5 & 6)

Held: - No writ in the nature of mandamus can
be issued to any authority to consider any
claim set up by any person on the basis of a
Government Order which is violative and
contrary to the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act. (Para 12)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
defect
is
incurable;
no
amount
of
explanation can change the ultimate result,
being a fait accompli. The petitioner can
by no means negate the admitted fact.

31. In view of the same, we are of
the considered view that the order passed
by the respondent no.4 dated 24.10.2017
does not call for any interference by this
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India.

32. The writ petition is devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed.

33. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1279

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 58399 of 2013

Shiv Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Uma Nath Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh

A. The land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Section 11 - award - acquisition is final
and conclusive - land acquired vests with
the Government - No provision under the
Land Acquisition Act or any other law
which directs for re-conveyance of the
acquired land to the tenure holders for
any
reason
-Government
Order
supplements the statutory provisions - no
overriding effect upon the statutory
provisions - if the Act does not provide
for the re-conveyance of the acquired
land to the erstwhile owners for any
reason, it cannot be done by means of a
simple Government Order - Petitioner
directed to pursue his remedy before the
appropriate authority. (Para 9, 10 & 15)

Land acquired under the provision of the Land
Acquisition Act not utilized by the Development
Authority for the industrial purpose - Petitioner
submitted representation before the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority for the
lease back of the land in view of the
Government Order. (Para 2, 5 & 6)

Held: - No writ in the nature of mandamus can
be issued to any authority to consider any
claim set up by any person on the basis of a
Government Order which is violative and
contrary to the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act. (Para 12)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

1. Ravindra Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Agra
and others, 2005 (2) AWC 1650

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner by means of this
petition seeks a direction upon the
respondent No.3 Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority to decide his
representation
dated
20.09.2013
for
leasing out the land which was acquired
from the petitioner in view of the
Government Order dated 24.04.2010.

3. There is no dispute to the fact that
the land of the petitioner, Khasra No. 356
1 All. Shiv Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1281
area 1800 square meters situate in village
Sakipur, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil Sadar,
District
Gautam
Buddh
Nagar,
was
acquired by the State of U.P. for the
benefit of the Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority in accordance
with the provisions of Land Acquisition
Act.

4. In respect of the said acquisition,
an award has also been pronounced under
Section 11 of the Act and the acquisition is
final and conclusive.

5. The contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the aforesaid land has not
been utilized by the Development Authority
for the industrial purpose and as such in view
of the Government Order dated 24.04.2010,
the petitioner is entitled for the lease back of
the said land as has been done in the case of
one Khajan Singh.

6. It is in respect of such lease back
of the land that the petitioner has
submitted the aforesaid representation.

7. The aforesaid Government Order
provides that in view of public resentment
against the acquisition in matters where
de-notification of the land has been
accepted, the acquired land may be given
on lease to the tenure holders at the level
of the authority on the approval of the
Board.

8. The language of the aforesaid
Government Order makes it clear that the
lease back policy is applicable where
proceedings for de-notification of the
acquired land have been approved. In the
case at hand, we do not find that there is
any averment to the above effect so as to
bestow the benefit of leasing out the
acquired land in favour of the petitioner.

9. In addition to the above, there is
no provision under the Land Acquisition
Act or any other law which directs for reconveyance of the acquired land to the
tenure holders for any reason. The land
which has been acquired vests with the
Government and cannot be re-conveyed to
the tenure holders in the absence of any
provision in this regard in the concerned
Statute.

10. It is well settled that a
Government Order simply supplements the
statutory provisions but has no overriding
effect upon the statutory provisions. Thus,
if the Act does not provide for the reconveyance of the acquired land to the
erstwhile owners for any reason, it cannot
be done by means of a simple Government
Order.

11. A Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. District
Magistrate, Agra and others, 2005 (2)
AWC 1650, dealing with somewhat a
similar
controversy
regarding
a
Government
Order
providing
for
employment to one of the family members
of those whose land has been acquired,
held that the Land Acquisition Act is a
self-contained Code and any Government
Order providing for any benefit not
mentioned
in
the
Act
would
be
inconsistent with the intention of the
Parliament and as such Government Order
providing for such extra benefits would be
violative of the Act and would be invalid.

12. It further held that no writ in the
nature of mandamus can be issued to any
authority to consider any claim set up by
any person on the basis of a Government
Order which is violative and contrary to
the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act.
1282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. It is also pertinent to mention
here that the petitioner is not entitle to any
parity with the case of Khajan Singh as the
principle of parity is not applicable where
the benefit has been extended contrary to
the law. There are no pleadings to the
effect that the aforesaid Khajan Singh was
given
the
benefit
of
the
aforesaid
Government Order as per law.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we do not find any merit in
this
petition
for
exercising
the
discretionary jurisdiction not even for
directing to consider the representation of
the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue
his remedy before the appropriate authority.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1281

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2019

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

Writ C No. 65211 of 2009

Narendra Giri Mahant ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Sri C.B. Yadav, Sri
Anand Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, Sri
Prashant Mathur, Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla,
Sri Satish Kumar Rai

A. Sanction - Cantonments Act, 2006 - No
development activity in the form of
erection or re-erection of the building,
even in respect of area in occupation of
civilian if the land falls in the cantonment
area, can be carried out except with the
prior sanction of competent authority.

This implies that even in cases where there are
temples in the defence area and are in
occupancy of civilian or math or mahant for
that matter, such math or mahant or civilian
cannot carry out or undertake any exercise of
erection or re-erection of the temple structure
eve within the temple premises except with
prior sanction of the competent authority under
the Cantonment Act, 2006. The permission so
granted in the present case in the year 2004
will automatically deemed to have seized with
enforcement of the Cantonment Act, 2006.
(Para 43 and 47)
Editor's note
The High Court has settled the legal position
with respect to the right of an individual private
person to raise construction over the land or in
respect of building which is recorded in the GLR
as a private land/building in occupation of a
private individual either under lease or grant or
mere occupancy before and after coming into
force of Cantonments Act, 2006. Prior to the
enforcement of Act of 2006, erection or reerection of building in civil area requires
sanction by the Cantonment Board, otherwise
penal consequences follow (Sections 178A and
179 of Act of 1924). Pursuant to which vide
letter dated 06.03.2004 the Board has granted
permission/sanction to the Mahant of temple to
carry out renovation or repair works only. The
letter dated 06.03.2004 which is only a onetime measure cannot be read as to include the
permission/sanction by the Board to raise new
structures in the temple premises.
The Act of 2006 has widened the powers of the
Board and authority designated thereunder.
Now, the building erection or re-erection
includes
any
material
alterations
or
enlargement of any building and its existing
structure. The Board has power to sanction the
work of erection or re-erection which shall be
valid for 2 years only from the date of sanction,
extended only upon sanction by the Board.
Penal consequences will be attracted in case of