# Shiv Nath Seth v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39723
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-nath-seth-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39723
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

1ALL] Shiv Nath Seth V. State of U.P. and others 27

"Provided
that
in
making
their
recommendations
the
Commission
shall
satisfy themselves that the candidate-
(i) has obtained such an aggregate of marks in
the written test that he is qualified by his
ability for appointment to the service:
(ii) has obtained in the viva voce test such
sufficiently high marks that he is suitable for
the service."

It has been held by the Apex Court in that
case as under:

 "Where selection is made on the basis of
written as well as viva voce test, the final
result is determined on the basis of the
aggregate marks. If any minimum marks
either in the written test or in viva voce test
are fixed to determine the suitability of a
candidate, the same has to be respected.
Clause (ii) of the proviso to R. 19 clearly
confers power on the Commission to fix
minimum marks for viva voce test for judging
the suitability of a candidate for the service.
Thus even if a candidate has obtained higher
aggregate marks in written and viva voce test
but if he had failed to secure the minimum
marks in the viva voce test his name could not
be included in the list prepared by the
Commission under R. 19."

7. There is no quarrel with the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in the cases
referred to above but the decisions afore
stated bear no resemblance for application to
the
facts
of
the
present
case.
The
advertisement in question herein clearly
postulates that if a large number of candidates
have qualified in the written examination,
then only such candidates would be called for
interview who have secured 'maximum
marks'. The notification dated July 10,1986
reliance on which has been placed by the
learned Standing Counsel, was in respect of a
particular recruitment year. It cannot be
attributed any force of the statutory rules. In
the absence of any statutory rules, the
recruitment has to be governed by what is
provided in the advertisement pursuant to
which the recruitment is sought to be made.
The advertisement in the present case, as
already noticed, clearly postulates that only
those candidates should be qualified for
interview who have secured "maximum
marks" in the final written examination. It
nowhere prescribes any minimum mark in the
aggregate or any minimum in each subject i.e.
it nowhere provides that candidates will have
to secure 40% marks in each subject and 50%
in the aggregate in order to be able to make
way for interview. Therefore, according to
the advertisement, the criterion for calling the
candidates for interview is the merit to be
determined on the basis of total aggregate
marks
obtained
in
the
final
written
examination. Accordingly, no exception can
be taken to the view taken by the learned
Single Judge.

As a result of foregoing discussion, the
appeals fail and are dismissed in limine.
Appeal dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 129(0%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 129(0%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 5$9, 6'+$9$1 -
7+( +21·%/( 5$9, 6'+$9$1 -
7+( +21·%/( %',.+6,7 -
7+( +21·%/( %',.+6,7 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6KLY 1DWK 6HWK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL +1 6LQJK
6KUL 51 8SDGK\D
6KUL 56 &KDXKDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL .% 0DWKXU
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
28
&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

$
'HSULYDWLRQ
RI
3URSHUW\
XVXUSWLRQ
RI
DJULFXOWXUDO
ODQG
RI
SHWLWLRQHU
IRU
SXEOLF
SXUSRVH
QHLWKHU
WKH
ODQG
DFTXLUHG
LQ
DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK ODZ QRU FRPSHQVDWLRQ SDLG
IRU DERXW \HDUV GLVSLWH RI WLPH JUDQWHG
QR &$ ILOHG QRU WKH UHVSRQVLEOH DXWKRULW\
DSSHDU EHIRUH WKH &RXUW H[XPSODU\ FRVW
HPSRVHG GLUHFWLRQ JLYHQ WR WKH $FFRXQWDQW
*HQHUDO RI 83 ZLWK FHUWDLQ REVHUYDWLRQV
+HOG
,Q SUHVHQW FDVH DOVR WKH ILQDQFH IRU WKH
SXEOLF SURMHFW IRU VHWWLQJ D SXPS KRXVH DQG
IRU DQWL SROOXWLRQ PHDVXUHV IRU WKH *RPWL
5LYHU
KDG
EHHQ
VDQFWLRQHG
DV
D
SXEOLF
VFKHPH $FTXLVLWLRQ SURFHHGLQJV KDG EHHQ
WDNHQ
RXW
7KH
&RXUW
ZRXOG
QRW
NQRZ
FRPSHQVDWLRQ KDG EHHQ GHSRVLWHG RU QRW
7KH UHVSRQGHQWV GR QRW UHSO\ WR WKH SHWLWLRQ
7KH
SHWLWLRQHU
KDV
QRW
UHFHLYHG
FRPSHQVDWLRQ HYHQ WKRXJK KLV ODQG KDG
EHHQ μDFTXLUHG¶ PRUH WKDQ \HDUV DJR ,Q
WKH SUHVHQW FDVH LW ZRXOG EH DSSURSULDWH WKDW
WKLV PDWWHU LV UHSRUWHG WR WKH $FFRXQWDQW
*HQHUDO
83
3XEOLF
PRQH\V
PXVW
EH
DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH PXVW EH XVHG VWULFWO\ LQ
DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH SURFHGXUH HVWDEOLVKHG
XQGHU WKH ODZ ,I WKH PRQH\ LV VDQFWLRQHG IRU
D SXEOLF VFKHPH DQG VXFK D VFKHPH KDV EHHQ
H[HFXWHG RQ WKH SHWLWLRQHU¶V SORW WKHQ WKH
ODZ H[SHFWV DQG WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
REOLJHV
WKH
UHVSRQGHQWV
WR
WDNH
RXW
DFTXLVLWLRQ SURFHHGLQJV 7KH SHWLWLRQHU DW
HYHU\ JLYHQ WLPH KDG WKH SURWHFWLRQ RI
$UWLFOH $ WKDW KH ZRXOG QRW EH GHSULYHG
RI KLV SURSHUW\ LQ WRWDO YLRODWLRQ RI WKH ODZ
DQG WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ ERWK 7KH UHVSRQGHQWV
FRXOG QRW MXVWLI\ WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ SURFHHGLQJV
XQGHU DQ\ SURFHGXUH HVWDEOLVKHG E\ ODZ DQG
IXUWKHU YLRODWHG $UW $SDUD
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD WR GHSULYH D SHUVRQ RI
KLV SURSHUW\ QDNHGO\ LQ YLRODWLRQ RI WKH GXH
SURFHVV RI WKH ODZ )XUWKHU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
GHVSLWH DQG RUGHU RI WKH &RXUW GLG QRW ILOH
WKH FRXQWHU DIILGDYLW E\ D UHVSRQVLEOH RIILFHU
QHLWKHU WKH 83 -DO 1LJDP QRU WKH 6WDWH RI
83 ZKLFK GLG QRW ILOH D UHSO\ DW DOO ,Q WKHVH
FLUFXPVWDQFHV
WKH
&RXUW
FRQVLGHUV
LW
DSSURSULDWH WKDW HDFK VHW RI UHVSRQGHQWV
WKDW LV WKH 83 -DO 1LJDP DV ZHOO DV WKH 6WDWH
RI 8WWDU 3UDGHVK VKDOO EH VXEMHFW WR FRVWV WR
EH GHSRVLWHG ZLWK WKH 5HJLVWUDU +LJK &RXUW
ZLWKLQ ILIWHHQ GD\V IURP WRGD\ 7KHVH FRVWV
ZLOO VWDQG DV 5V DJDLQVW WKH 83 -DO
1LJDP RQH VHW DQG 5V DJDLQVW WKH
6WDWH RI 8WWDU 3UDGHVK VHFRQG VHW WR EH SDLG
E\ WKH 'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH -DXQSXU ZKR KDG
NQRZOHGJH RI WKH DFTXLVLWLRQ SURFHHGLQJV
EXW ZRXOG QRW ILOH WKH FRXQWHU DIILGDYLW
GHVSLWH DQ RUGHU RI WKH &RXUW SDUD DQG

By the Court

1. In Uttar Pradesh, the Court has had
several occasions noticing usurpation and
illegal occupation of the properties of citizens
in violation of the procedure established by
law. This is another case. The Court will
revert to other cases subsequently in this
order.

2. The petitioner, Shiv Nath Seth, Resident
of Kerakat, Post Office Sadar, District
Jaunpur had his Bhumidhari plots no. 12/164
area 32 decimal and plot no. 2 area 3 decimal
walked into by the respondents without any
authority and on the property of the petitioner,
the U.P. Jal Nigam, established under the U.P.
Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975,
constructed a pumping set and sewerage drain
under the Gomti Pollution Control Project.

3. The petitioner complains that after the
plot had been occupied and taken, ostensibly
for
establishing
a
public
project,
the
'acquisition' should have been made under
the procedure established by law so that the
petitioner could object to the acquisition,
which, if rejected , would have entitled him,
as of might, to compensation. The contention,
on behalf of the petitioner, is that this
usurpation of his property has deprived him to
object against the illegal occupation of his
property
and
compensation
both.
The
petitioner contends that 20 years have passed
and he is getting on in years as he is 75 years
old today and has been left with no choice
except to accept the compensation which also
is not forthcoming. The petitioner contends
that his land had been possessed for a public
project is not an issue and as late as 5
October, 1997 (Annexure-1 to the petition),
the Tehsildar certified the occupation of the
1ALL] Shiv Nath Seth V. State of U.P. and others 29
petitioner's
plots
for
the
purposes
of
executing a public project. The petitioner also
contends that of an occupation which was
made 20 years ago, the records are being
certified
after
two
decades.
Then,
the
petitioner
contends
that
the
District
Magistrate, Jaunapur, has written to the
General Manager, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow,
by his communication of 2 April, 1998
(Annexure-2 to the writ petition) that the
petitioner be paid compensation in accordance
with law for the 'acquisition' which has been
made for executing the project under the
Gomti
Pollution
Control
Project.
The
Petitioner submits that the District Magistrate
repeated his request to the General Manager,
U.P.
Jal
Nigam,
Lucknow,
by
his
communication of 13 May, 1998 (Annexure-3
to the writ petition) that the compensation
against the 'acquisition' be processed without
any further delay, yet, the petitioner has not
received the compensation. The petitioner
further pleads that the Chief Engineer (East),
U.P. Jal Nigam, Allahabad, had even been
advised by a member of the Legislative
Assembly, the Hon'ble Mr. Reoti Raman
Singh, that the delayed compensation ought to
be paid to the petitioner. This aspect is to be
found in a communication (Annexure 4 to the
writ petition) written by the Superintending
Engineer (Ganga) to the Chief Engineer
(East), U.P. Jal Nigam, Allahabad. The
petitioner submits that no attention has been
paid
to
this
matter
of
payment
of
compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner
further submits that irrelevant correspondence
is being made and this is evidenced by the fact
that the Executive Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigam,
Jaunpur, is writing to the Executive Engineer,
VII
Region,
Varanasi,
and
seeking
clarification whether the petitioner's plot had
in fact been acquired for the public project
and that a report be submitted on this aspect
(Annexure -5 to the writ petition).

4. On behalf of the petitioner, it is
contended that this is a frustrating exercise
that once it is on record that even the project
has been executed and complete on the
petitioner's land, there should be no question
of seeking further reports whether the land
had in fact been possessed by the State
respondents. The State of Uttar Pradesh has
not replied to the writ petition. Though, if an
acquisition of land has been done under the
procedure prescribed by law, the sovereign
powers of the State could be utilised and that
also by an acquisition under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. On behalf of the U.P.
Jal Nigam, the petition has been answered by
a counter affidavit by a Noter and Drafter of
the Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam,
Jaunpur. This in itself implies that the high
officials are evading the responsibility to
reply to the writ petition.

5. In the counter affidavit, which has
been sworn by aNoter and Drafter, basically a
clerk with the U.P. Jal Nigam, Jaunpur, it is
estimated that the project was prepared at an
estimated cost of Rs. 18.44 lacs in 1970-71.
The funds were provided by the State
government. The project was executed by the
U.P. Jal Nigam, at the site which was made
available by the Nagar Palika, Jaunpur. It is
accepted that the land on which the project
was executed, belongs to the petitioner, Shiv
Nath Seth. It is contended that the petitioner
did not raise any claim or make any complaint
about possession having been taken of his
land nor any complaint about non-payment of
compensation. The counter affidavit submits
that the Jal Nigam was under the impression
that the matter of compensation may have
been settled between the Nagar Palikaa,
Jaunpur and the petitioner and that the U.P.
Jal Nigam merely executed the scheme under
the project. It is also contended in its counter
affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to
claim compensation at the present market
value. A technical plea is raised that the
petitioner has not impleaded the Nagar Palika,
Jaunpur. The counter affidavit also mentions
that as in accordance with the record
available, the U.P. Jal Nigam did not acquire
the land of the petitioner nor is there any
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
30
liability to pay compensation to the petitioner
by U.P. Jal Nigam. Simultaneously, it is
contended in the counter affidavit that when
the District Magistrsate, Jaunpur, by his letter
of 2 April 1998 wrote to the U.P. Jal Nigam'
the matter was referred to respondent no. 3 '
The respondent no. 3 happens to be the
General Manager, Gomti Pollution Control
Unit, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow. A technical
plea is raised that the petitioner has filed a
case before the Consumer Protection Forum,
Jaunpur and has not stated that he has
withdrawn the case and that the petitioner has
complained
to
the
Additional
District
Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Jaunpur,
about not having received the compensation.
The counter affidavit which has been filed and
a clerk has been required to affirm it, is a
bundle of contradictions. The only conclusion
the Court can draw from this counter affidavit
is that the records are being shuttled inter
office. There is no urgency to process the
payment of compensation to the petitioner. It
is accepted that the scheme was executed by
the U.P. Jal Nigam and , simultaneously, this
corporation asserts that it has no liability or
responsibility to arrange for compensation to
the petitioner.

6. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner
asserts that he is a poor citizen and he expects
that in a welfare State, the State and its
constituents would function by the rule of
law, so provided under the Constitution, and
the compensation would be forthcoming, after
his land has been 'acquired'. The petitioner
also mentions in his rejoinder affidavit that at
one
stage
the
Executive
Engineer,
Construction Division, U.P. Jal Nigam,
Jaunpur , had written to the General Manager,
Gomti Pollution Control Unit, by assessing
the compensation at Rs.4,85,340/- (Annexure
1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit). In answer to the
technical pleas taken in the counter affidavit
of U.P. Jal Nigam, the petitioner asserts that
he may have filed a case before the Consumer
Forum incorrectly as this may not be the
competent authority to look into the matter of
compensation. In arguments counsel for the
petitioner has asserted that the land of the
petitioner
has
not
been
acquired,
but
possessed
illegally
in
violation
of
all
procedures relating to acquisition.. It is
submitted that the rule of law has been
violated. It is reiterated that the petitioner is
being harassed by officials of U.P. Jal Nigam
as well as the State in being denied
compensation when his land was taken 20
years ago. Learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently pleaded before the Court that he
would have sought the return of his land and
that he is entitled to this relief because there is
no land acquisition proceedings. But, it was
submitted that the petitioner is, 75 years old,
today, and would rather see receipt of
compensation in his hands calculated at the
market rate and since it has not been paid, it
should be deemed that his land has been
possessed as a continuing wrong so that it is
calculated at the market rate with all the
consequences for awarding the compensation
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

7. In this regard, the State respondents
have evaded reply to the petition, though there
was no lack of opportunity to answer the writ
petition; certain orders of the Court needs to
be noticed. Despite an order of the High Court
that the counter affidavit should be affirmed
by the Executive Engineer, Construction
Division, U.P. Jal Nigam, Jaunpur, or the
Superintending
Engineer,
VII
Region,
Varanasi, the counter affidavit was not
verified by the respondents. The Court
required the counter affidavit on behalf of the
State to be filed by the District Magistrate,
Jaunpur. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur did
not reply to the writ petition. The Court issued
a rule of mandamus to the respondents that
the claim of the petitioner for compensation
be processed or cause be shown by the
respondents, named in the order of the Court.
Cause was not shown by any of the
respondents. The record rests with the
responsible officers not verifying the counter
affidavit and deputing a clerk to reply to the
1ALL] Shiv Nath Seth V. State of U.P. and others 31
petition. The District Magistrate chose not to
reply to the petition.

In the circumstances, the three orders of
the Court reflecting on the manner in which
the officers have evaded responding to the
petition are reproduced below :

"30th September 1999
Hon'ble Ravi S. Dhavan, J.
Hon'ble B. Dikshit, J.

Standing counsel reports that he has no
instructions as of date. Jal Nigam has had an
affidavit filed, which affidavit has been
affirmed by a Noter and Drafter whose
position is not better than a clerk. He has been
deputed to file an affidavit on behalf of (1)
Executive Engineer, Construction Division,
U.P.
Jal
Nigam,
Jaunpur,
and
(2)
Superintending Engineer, 7th Region, U.P. Jal
Nigam, Varanasi. As the affidavit is without
responsibility, both these respondents will be
present in the Court when the matter is fixed
next.

8. They are to verify the affidavit which
has been filed before the Court. They are put
at caution on responsibility before they verify
the affidavit that should it need a change in
pleadings,
then
they
must
first
seek
permission of the Court.

9. The Court has already recorded in its
order dated 24th March 1999 that the Standing
Counsel has notice of the petition since 21st
December 1998. Standing counsel will ensure
that a counter affidavit is filed by the District
Magistrate, Jauanpur, forthwith

Enough opportunities have been given to
all the respondents to reply the petition.

10. Let respondents be under a rule of
interim mandamus to respond to the claim
which the petitioner has prayed for payment
of compensation or show cause as both the
respondents have yet to file affidavit of a
responsible officer whereas the State has not
filed any affidavit.
Put up on 6th October, 1999.

October 7, 1999
Hon'ble Ravi S.Dhavan, J.
Hon'ble B. Dikshit, J.
Present:
Mr. H.N. Singh, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Mehta, Chief Standing Counsel,
.U.P.
Mr. K.B.Mathur, counsel for the U.P. Jal
Nigam.

11. Unfortunately, despite the matter
being pending for long as to date the State of
Uttar Pradesh has not filed a counter affidavit.
The counter affidavit which had been filed on
behalf of Jal Nigam, the Court had noticed,
had been affirmed by a noter and drafter. The
Court did not accept this as an affidavit of
responsibility, but permitted the same counter
affidavit to be verified by those who had been
as respondents. The respondents concerned
were also required to be present in Court
today. The counter affidavit has not been
verified by these respondents.

12. In the circumstances, in so far as the
State of U.P. is concerned, it has chosen not to
reply to the petition. In so far as the U.P. Jal
Nigam is concerned, it has not filed an
affidavit of responsibility.

13. This state of the record in itself is a
very serious matter. The petitioner complains
that hiss land had been allegedly acquired 20
years ago. The petitioner had had it submitted
that
there
were
no
land
acquisition
proceedings.
The
petitioners
counsel
submitted that the petitioner did file a case
before the consumer forum and this had been
done on wrong advise of the counsel. The
legal submission made on behalf of the
petitioner is that there is no land acquisition
proceedings and the very nature of usurpation
which the respondents have done is unlawful
as no provision has been made for the alleged
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
32
occupation to be followed by consequential
proceedings and payment of compensation.
This, the petitioner submits in paragraph 9 of
the writ petition. The petitioner contends the
land which was acquired is his Bhumidhari
and was in his personal cultivation and was
otherwise within the ceiling limits that is to
say that the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960.

14. The first question which has to be
determined is whether the assertion of the
petitioner that there were no land acquisition
proceedings is correct or incorrect. On this no
issue has been raised and it has been accepted
both by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of U.P. Jal Nigam for whose benefit it was
claimed that the land had been acquired that
there were no land acquisition proceedings.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel, U.P. has
also made a statement that there are no land
acquisition proceedings. As the solitary
affidavit filed before the Court on behalf of
the U..P. Jal Nigam is an affidavit without
responsibility and the State of U.P. has not
filed and affidavit, the Court has no option,
but to presume that the respondents have
nothing to submit in reply to the petition.

15. The first submission which was made
on behalf of the U.P. Jal Nigam by its counsel
is that it was not its responsibility to arrange
for compensation as this was the obligation of
the State of U.P.

On behalf of the State of U.P., learned
Chief Standing Counsel offered the following
arguments:

(a) It is correct that there were no land
acquisition proceedings,
(b) It is accepted that the land of the
petitioner had been trespassed by the State of
Uttar Pradesh,
(c) It is acknowledged that compensation
has not been paid to the petitioner and
(d) That the State respondents would be
advised to process the compensation.
16. It was accepted that despite notice on
the petition since December 1998, learned
Chief Standing Counsel has received no
instructions in this matter. Thus; the Court
will confine the arguments as have been given
against (a),(b) and (c). The last argument
submitted by learned Chief Standing Counsel,
U.P., is that notwithstanding that there were
no land acquisition proceedings and that the
respondents have trespassed into the land of
the petitioner, yet at best the petitioner is only
entitled to compensation and the situation
cannot be restituted by returning the land to
him. This submission is a cause for concern.
When the Chief Standing Counsel, U.P., was
required to explain and fortify the submission,
he contended that the land had been
trespassed for a public project in the larger
interest of the public and, therefore, the
petitioner can only receive ex post facto
compensation, at best, under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, but no restitution. It
was contended by learned Chief Standing
Counsel, U.P., that the State is entitled to
exercise its sovereign powers for a public
project in the public interest, though land
acquisition proceedings may not take place.
What the learned Chief Standing Counsel,
U.P. has contended is that the state may utilise
its sovereign powers sans the procedure
prescribed by laws. This may be a dangerous
argument which will need to be fortified by
learned Chief Standing Counsel, who was
otherwise busy during the post lunch session.
The case was adjourned to tomorrow. The
court was obliged to ecord these submissions,
regard being had to the seriousness of the
circumstance
that
a
citizen
has
been
guaranteed his rights to possess a property
which will not be acquired except by the
procedure established by law. Simply put land
acquisition proceedings may be set in motion
and the State may use its sovereign powers
strictly under the rule of law.
Put up tomorrow.
October 14, 1999.
Hon'ble Ravi S.Dhavan, J.
Hon'ble B. Dikshit, J.
1ALL] Shiv Nath Seth V. State of U.P. and others 33

17. This is a case where the State of Uttar
Pradesh has elected not to file a counter
affidavit. It is sufficiently recorded in the
proceedings that there was no lack of
opportunity to reply to the petition. The Court
gave indulgences to the District Magistrate,
Jaunpur to reply to the petition. In this regard,
the Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the
District Magistrate sought adjournments. The
petition remains unreplied, as of date. In this
matter as a counter affidavit was not
forthcoming the action was being justified as
taken under the sovereign powers of the State.
The Chief Standing Counsel after the order of
7 October 1999 had the matter adjourned
because even if compensation is to be
processed, then, the District Magistrate and
Collector does come into the picture. The case
was adjourned on 8 October,,11October,, 12
October and 13 October.

18. The Chief Standing Counsel reports to
the Court that it is on record that he had a talk
with the District Magistrate and Collector on
10 October, 1999 that this matter may need
his presence. Today, the Chief Standing
Counsel reports that the District Magistrate
and Collector having been advised, regard
being had to the circumstances of this case,
that her presence would be necessary, is now
informed that the District Magistrate and
Collector has gone on leave until 16 October.
The Chief Standing Counsel also submits that
whatever had to be ratified by the District
Magistrate and Collector, cannot be done by
the Additional District Magistrate (Finance).
The writ petition remain unreplied.

First intimating the Court that the District
Magistrate and Collector will be available to
the Court and then the official takes leave is
an act of discourtesy. This leaves the Court
with no option but to reserve the judgement
on this case.
"Order/judgement reserved"

19. In the net result, the approach of the
State respondents is callous, arbitrary and
disrespect to the laws of the nation. The word,
acquisition, in reference to property, implies
that it would be in accordance with the
procedure established by law. To usurp the
property of a citizen, retain its possession and
use it for State use without recourse to
acquisition proceedings. As are prescribed by
the law, is an anti thesis to the rule of law. It
is disrespect to the Constitution of India.
Under Article 300-A, the right to property is
recognised. This Article, as it appears under
Chapter IV, is reproduced:
"Chapter IV
RIGHT TO PROPERTY

300-A Persons not to be deprived of
property save by authority of law. No person
shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law."
A plain reading of Article 300-A under
the head 'Right to property' leaves no doubt
that the Constitution of India recognises
person's
right
to
hold
property.
The
Constitution of India further stipulates that no
person shall be deprived of his property,
possession or title except under the procedure
prescribed by law. The respondents have
violated Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India with impunity. They have deprived the
petitioner of his property and have taken
possession from him under a camouflage that
it was being done as a State action for a public
project. This cannot be done. The argument
raised by the Chief Standing Counsel that the
property of the petitioner had been taken
under the sovereign powers of the State is
without satisfying the High Court as to how
these powers were utilised without recourse to
the law, the Rule of Law. It can only be done
in a dictatorship where the rule of law does
not hold. Such an argument cannot be made in
a democracy, which protects the liberty of a
citizen including his right to property and
protects its usurpation against an illegal state
action. Only if an Act of Parliament permits
the State to take action for acquirement of a
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
34
property for a public purpose, only then, the
property of a citizen may be subjected to
acquisition.
Even
under
the
law
the
acquisition, a declaration of intention has to
be announced that a public scheme or project
is to be executed and it is proposed to acquire
certain specified properties. All this did not
take place in the present case.

In a recent case,5 the Court found that
there were large scale arbitrary acquirement
of agricultural lands in east Uttar Pradesh for
the purpose of executing public scheme like
irrigation and canals. 2650 people were left
without compensation. No land acquisition
proceedings
were
initiated.
The
Court
required the Central Bureau of Investigation
to make a report. The CBI reported to the
Court that agriculturists had been deprived of
their land without acquisition proceedings and
about Rs. 775 lacs has yet to be paid as
compensation to more then two thousand
people. The Court has sent the report of the
CBI to the Comptroller and Auditor General
of India.

20. In the present case also, the finance for
the public project for setting a pump house
and for anti pollution measures for the Gomti
River had been sanctioned as a public scheme.
Acquisition proceedings had not been taken
out.
The
Court
would
not
know
compensation had been deposited or not. The
respondents do not reply to the petition. The
petitioner has not received compensation,
even though his land had been 'acquired'
more than 20 years ago. Thus, in the present
case it would be appropriate that this matter is
reported to the Accountant General, Uttar
Pradesh. Public moneys must be accounted
for and must be used strictly in accordance
with the procedure established under the law.
If the money is sanctioned for a public
scheme and such a scheme has been executed
on the petitioner's plot, then, the law expects
and the Constitution of India obliges the

 :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 'XUJD 3UDVDG DQG DQRWKHU Y
6WDWH RI 8WWDU 3UDGHVK DQG RWKHUV GHFLGHG RQ
respondents
to
take
out
acquisition
proceedings. The petitioner, at every given
time, had the protection of Article 300-A that
he would not be deprived of his property,
except in accordance with law. The petitioner
was deprived and dispossessed of his property
in to total violation of the law and the
Constitution, both. The Court now is left with
no option, but to require the District
Magistrate, Jaunpur, to cause a statement of
compensation to be filed before the District
Judge, Jaunpur, with fifteen days from today.
On this, the petitioner will be entitled to
object. The District Judge, Jaunpur, will settle
the claim and ensure that the compensation is
compatible with the criteria prescribed in the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It goes without
saying that the compensation is to be paid to
the petitioner in accordance with the current
market rate , as of date, for the simple reason
that it is acknowledged that there were no
proceedings for the acquirement of the land of
the petitioner in accordance with law.
Thereafter, it will be open to the District
Judge, Jaunpur, to modulate the solatium and
interest,
if
the
law
permits,
on
the
compensation as prescribed under the Act,
aforesaid. The matter will be settled by the
District Judge, Jaunpur within two months of
a certified copy of this order being received
by him from the Registrar, High Court. The
Registrar, High Court, will ensure that this
order and judgement reaches the District
Judge, Jaunpur, forthwith.

21. The respondents could not justify the
acquisition proceedings under any procedure
established by law and further violated
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India to
deprive a person of his property nakedly in
violation of the due process of the law.
Further the respondents despite and order of
the Court, did not file the counter affidavit by
a responsible officer neither the U.P. Jal
Nigam nor the State of U.P. which did not file
a reply at all. In these circumstances, the
Court considers it appropriate that each set of
respondents, that is, the U.P. Jal Nigam as
1ALL] Union of India & another V. Central Administrative Tribunal and others 35
well as the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be
subject to costs, to be deposited with the
Registrar, High Court, within fifteen days
from today. These costs will stand as
Rs.10,000/- against the U.P. Jal Nigam, one
set and Rs. 10,000/- against the State of Uttar
Pradesh second set to be paid by the District
Magistrate, Jaunpur, who had knowledge of
the acquisition proceedings, but would not file
the counter affidavit, despite an order of the
Court.

A copy of this judgement will be sent by
the Registrar, High Court, to the Accountant
General, U.P., for an audit on the public
project on the manner of initiating it and its
execution.

The petition is allowed with costs, as
above.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

8QLRQ RI ,QGLD DQG RWKHUV «3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
&HQWUDO $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 7ULEXQDO $GGLWLRQDO
%HQch DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL $. *DXU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&HQWUDO ,QGXVWULDO 7ULEXQDO 6 UHDGZLWK
&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
DUWLFOH
DZDUG
JLYHQ
E\
WKH
&HQWUDO
,QGXVWULDO
7ULEXQDO
YDOLGLW\ FDQ QRW EH FKDOOHQJHG EHIRUH WKH
FHQWUDO $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 7ULEXQDO LW FDQ RQO\ EH
FKDOOHQJHG
XQGHU
FRQVWLWXWLRQDO
UHPHG\
XQGHU $UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ
+HOG
7KLV PHDQV WKDW WKH DZDUG RI WKH ,QGXVWULDO
7ULEXQDO
RU
ODERXU
&RXUW
FDQQRW
EH
FKDOOHQJHG E\ ZD\ RI DQ\ VWDWXWRU\ UHPHG\
,W FDQ RQO\ EH FKDOOHQJHG E\ PHDQV RI WKH
FRQVWLWXWLRQDO
UHPHG\
,W
FDQ
RQO\
EH
FKDOOHQJHG E\ PHDQV RI WKH FRQVWLWXWLRQDO
UHPHG\ XQGHU $UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ
7KH &HQWUDO $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 7ULEXQDO KDV EHHQ
FUHDWHG E\ WKH $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 7ULEXQDO $FW
ZKLFK LV D VWDWXWRU\ HQDFKWPHQW DQG QRW D
FRQVWLWXWLRQDO HQDFWPHQW +HQFH WKH DZDUG
RI
WKH
,QGXVWULDO
7ULEXQDO
FDQ
RQO\
EH
FKDOOHQJHG LQ WKLV &RXUW E\ PHDQV RI D ZULW
SHWLWLRQ XQGHU $UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ
DQG
LW
FDQQRW
EH
FKDOOHQJHG
EHIRUH
WKH
&HQWUDO $GPLQLVWUDWLYH 7ULEXQDO SDUD
&DVH /DZ GLVFXVVHG
$,5 6&

By the Court

1. This Writ petition has been filed against
the
impugned
order
of
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 03.10.1997
Annexure 4 to the petition and against the
award of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur dated
18.06.1993 Annexure 3 to the petition.

2. It appears that a reference was made by
the central Government to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Kanpur regarding the termination of
service of respondent no. 2 and the Tribunal
an award dated 18.06.1993 in favour of the
workman. Against that award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour
court it appears that the petitioner approached
the Central Administrative Tribunal and the
Central Administrative Tribunal passed the
impugned order dated 03.10.1997.

3. In our opinion, the petition before the
Central Administrative Tribunal was wholly
misconceived. It may be mentioned that under
Section 17 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act
the award of the Industrial Tribunal if final.
This means way of any statutory remedy. It
can only be challenged by means of the
constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
The
Central
Administrative