# Shiva Nand Gupta & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 625
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-05-26
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23465 of 2010
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Naheed Ara Monnis
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiva-nand-gupta-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42866
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Compensation-land
occupied
by
PWDwithout
following
procedure
of
Land
Acquisition Act-for last 30 years petitioner
running from pillar to post-lastly in the year
2009 with mutual settlement agreed to pay
compensation at circle rate of 2001-although
not entitled for interest-but entitled 30%
solatium-payble
within
3
month
with
interest by 15% per annum in case of
default interest rate shall be 24 % apart
form cost of Rs. One Lacs-petition allowed.

Held: Para-10 & 11
We, however, hold that the petitioners
would be entitled to an amount of 30%
solatium on the assessed amount of Rs.
10,91,375/-. We further hold that on the
said amount of solatium the petitioners shall
also be entitled to interest at rate of 15%
per annum from 13.5.2010 till the date of
actual payment. The said amount shall be
paid to the petitioners within three months
from today failing which the respondents
shall be liable to pay interest at 24% per
annum from 13.5.2010 till the date of actual
payment.

## Text

2 All] Shiva Nand Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
625
Court's order by allowing revision since the
Trial Court has committed a serious
jurisdictional error by entertaining a time
barred suit and making ti within time by
allowing application under Section 5 of Act,
1963.
The
Revisional
Court's
order,
therefore, warrants no interference.

8. Dismissed. Interim order, if any,
stands vacated.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2014

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23465 of 2010

Shiva Nand Gupta & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, Sri N.C.
Rajvanshi, Sri Lal Ji Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Compensation-land
occupied
by
PWDwithout
following
procedure
of
Land
Acquisition Act-for last 30 years petitioner
running from pillar to post-lastly in the year
2009 with mutual settlement agreed to pay
compensation at circle rate of 2001-although
not entitled for interest-but entitled 30%
solatium-payble
within
3
month
with
interest by 15% per annum in case of
default interest rate shall be 24 % apart
form cost of Rs. One Lacs-petition allowed.

Held: Para-10 & 11
We, however, hold that the petitioners
would be entitled to an amount of 30%
solatium on the assessed amount of Rs.
10,91,375/-. We further hold that on the
said amount of solatium the petitioners shall
also be entitled to interest at rate of 15%
per annum from 13.5.2010 till the date of
actual payment. The said amount shall be
paid to the petitioners within three months
from today failing which the respondents
shall be liable to pay interest at 24% per
annum from 13.5.2010 till the date of actual
payment.

11. Considering the fact that the land of the
petitioners was taken over 36 years back,
and they were paid compensation only after
filing of this writ petition, and before that
also the petitioners had to file another writ
petition earlier and had to wait for more than
three decades, because of which their family
members must have suffered substantial
loss, we direct that the respondents shall be
liable to pay cost, which we assess at Rs.
One lac. The said amount of Rs. One lac shall
also be paid to the petitioners within the
aforesaid period of three months from today.
The
Principal
Secretary,
Public
Works
Department, Government of U.P., shall
ensure that the order of this Court is
complied with within the specified time.

Case Law discussed:
2013(2) AWC 1795.

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

1. This is a case where it is admitted
by the respondents that the land of the
petitioners was taken over by the State
authorities more than three decades back
on 1.3.1978 without resorting to the
procedure of acquiring the land under the
Land Acquisition Act or by adopting any
other procedure prescribed in law. It
shows complete high-handedness of the
State-authorities
in
depriving
the
petitioners, who are villagers, of their land
without following the procedure of law. It
is not expected of the State authorities to
illegally take over the land of any citizen
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and sit tight over the matter, and it is only
after a marathon innings of struggle by
the land owners, in chasing their case
before the State-authorities and filing writ
petition in this Court, that the respondents
now come up with the case that during the
pendency of this writ petition the consent
has been taken from the petitioners in the
year 2010 to the effect that they would be
agreeable to accept the compensation at
the circle rate in terms of the G.O. dated
29.9.2001. Such agreement had been
arrived at only after this Court had passed
an order on 4.5.2010 to the effect that the
respondents shall ensure payment of
compensation to the petitioners for the
land which had been taken over by them,
or to show cause by the next date.
Thereafter
on
26.5.2010,
8.7.2010,
3.5.2013 and 14.5.2013 this Court had
passed the following orders:-

"ORDER DATED: 26.5.2010

On 04.05.2010, this Court had
passed the following order:-

"The grievance of the petitioners is
that though his land has been acquired in
1978 but till date no compensation has
been paid.

Learned Standing Counsel has, on
having received instructions, stated that
with regard to the said issue, a meeting
has been called for by the District
Magistrate on 13.05.2010, on which date
it is likely that the matter regarding
compensation would be taken.

In
view
of
the
aforesaid
circumstances, it is directed that the
respondents shall ensue payment of
compensation to the petitioner for the
land, which has been acquired by them
or they may show cause by the next
date.

List on 25.05.2010."

The said order has not been
complied with.

Learned Standing Counsel states that
the Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Public Works Department had already
sent the proposal for payment of the
compensation
and
the
payment
of
compensation would be made to the
petitioners very shortly.

Accordingly, on request of the
learned Standing Counsel, list on 8th
July, 2010, by which date the respondent
No.1
shall
ensure
payment
of
compensation to the petitioners, and also
file his personal affidavit explaining the
delay in making such payment to the
petitioners when the land was acquired in
the year 1978.

ORDER DATED: 8.7.2010

In compliance of this Court's order
dated 26.5.2010 Sri Ravindra Singh,
Principal Secretary, Government of U.P.
P.W.D.
has
filed
his
affidavit
of
compliance. In the said affidavit it is not
explained as to under what circumstances
the payment of Rs. 10 lacs and odd has
been made to the petitioners on 23.6.2010
when by communication dated 13.8.2009
(Annexure-10 to the writ petition) the
Executive Engineer had requested the
Government for a sum of Rs. 62,37,511/-
for payment of compensation.

Such affidavit of compliance, which
has been filed today, is not satisfactory,
inasmuch as it is not explained as to how
the figure of Rs. 10 lacs and odd, which
has been paid to the petitioner has been
arrived at.

Let
the
Principal
Secretary,
Government of U.P.. P.W.D file his
personal
affidavit
explaining
such
difference as to how the compensation has
been reduced from Rs. 62 lacs and odd to
2 All] Shiva Nand Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
627
Rs. 10 lacs and odd. The said officer shall
also file his counter affidavit in reply to
the averments made in the writ petition.
Such affidavit may be filed within three
weeks. The petitioners shall have one
week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List on 11th August, 2010.

ORDER DATED: 3.5.2013

On 8.7.2010, this Court did not
accept the compliance of the affidavit
filed by Sri Ravindra Singh, Principal
Secretary, Government of U.P. P.W.D. in
respect of payment of Rs. 10 lacs against
the amount of Rs. 62,37,511/- which was
to be paid by way of compensation.

In the counter affidavit, still no
explanation is there. If the amount to the
tune of Rs. 62,37,511/- pursuant to the
acquisition of the petitioner's land is
payable to him then why for such a long
period he has been paid only an amount
of Rs. 10 lacs, although the Executive
Engineer had requested the Government
for a sum of Rs. 62,37,511/-. The matter
appears to be very serious.

In respect to non-payment/delay in
payment of amount at least after 8.7.2010,
the interest payable of that amount will
have to be directed to be paid by the
concerned Officer from his personal
pocket, will also be a question which will
be dealt with on the next date.

If satisfactory explanation by the
personal
affidavit
of
the
Principal
Secretary, Government of U.P. P.W.D,
who may be holding the post held as on
date, is not filed on or before the date
fixed, then this Court will have no option
but to direct the personal appearance of
that Officer, so as to pass appropriate
orders.

Let
this
matter
be
listed
on
14.5.2013.

Certified copy of this order be made
available to the learned Standing Counsel
without any payment and to the counsel
for the petitioner on payment of usual
charges by Tuesday i.e. 7.5.2013.

ORDER DATED: 14.5.2013

Personal affidavit of Dr. Rajneesh
Dube, Principal Secretary, has been filed
to demonstrate that whatever was agreed
by the petitioner was paid.

Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit
clearly indicates that the amount payable
to the tenure holder has been calculated
after adding the interest and solatium
also.

After preparing the amount which is
in all to the tune of Rs. 62,37,511/- the
Executive Engineer appears to have
written to the District Magistrate for the
sanction of the same what can be the
reason on the part of the petitioner to
decline to accept that amount.

Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner accepted the amount at
the circle rate but that never mean that he
denied the acceptance of the amount of
interest and solatium.

Be as it may, affidavit filed by Sri
Dube is taken on record. Counsel for the
petitioner is permitted to file affidavit in
reply and to improve his own case.

As requested, list this matter in the
second week of July, 2013."

2. When this writ petition was filed
there was no such compensation offered
by the respondent-authorities, and the
prayer made in this writ petition was to
pay a sum of Rs. 62,35,511/- plus
solatium and interest etc. as had been
assessed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer vide his calculation chart prepared
on 3.8.2009, a copy whereof has been
filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. It
is this compensation which the learned
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
counsel for the petitioners asserts that the
petitioners would be entitled to. In the
rejoinder affidavit the specific case of the
petitioners is that the consent of the
petitioners
(which
was
during
the
pendency of the writ petition) was taken
by force in the circumstances when the
son of the petitioner no.2 died due to
kidney problem, and during the cremation
of his son he was called upon by the
District Magistrate to be present in the
meeting. It is thus contended that in such
circumstances the consent which was
taken from the petitioner no.2 cannot be
said to be free and fair, but by force and
pressure exerted on the petitioners by the
respondents.

3. We have heard Sri N.C.Rajvanshi,
learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Lal
Ji Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents and have perused the record.

4. On the basis of the alleged
compromise the compensation to be paid to
the petitioners was in terms of the G.O. dated
29.9.2001. The said G.O. speaks of market
value and not the circle rate. The Committee
constituted under the said G.O. dated
29.9.2001 assessed the compensation amount
for the land taken from the petitioners at the
circle rate and not the market value. The same
was assessed at Rs. 10,91,375/- which was
paid to the petitioners by two separate cheques
dated 23.6.2010. Even the said amount has
now been paid to the petitioners after they
were made to run from pillar to post for over
three decades, and had to file writ petition and
take recourse to other legal measures. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the amount determined by the committee
constituted under the G.O. dated 29.9.2001 is
also not as per the terms of the G.O. The circle
rate would be different from market value.
The committee has not proceeded to
determine the market value but has misinterpreted the G.O. and determined the
compensation payable to the petitioners at the
prevailing circle rate.

5. It may be relevant to mention that
the compensation of Rs.62,37,511/- plus
solatium and interest etc. claimed by the
petitioners on the basis of the report dated
3.8.2009 of the Special Land Acquisition
Officer does not appear to be very
appropriate as after calculating the current
market value, solatium at 30% has been
assessed, plus interest from the date of
acquisition till the date of the report has
also been calculated. In the present case,
since the value of the land at the circle
rate as on the date of the assessment has
been calculated, interest of 30 years
would not be payable. As such, the claim
of the petitioners to be paid compensation
at the rate assessed by the report dated
3.8.2009 of the Special Land Acquisition
Officer does not deserve to be granted.

6. Now this Court has to consider as
to whether the compensation which has
been paid on the basis of the assessment
and report of the committee submitted
after the filing of this writ petition would
be adequate and appropriate.

7. Depriving a citizen of his land,
especially at the hands of the State
authorities, is a very serious matter.
However necessary or laudable the
purpose for acquisition of land may be,
yet the State-authorities would be obliged
to comply with the provisions of law
before depriving any citizen of his land.
The present is a case where all procedures
have been done away with by the Stateauthorities and they have admittedly taken
2 All] Shiva Nand Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
629
over the land of the petitioners without
any authority of law, by using their might.
Such action of the State-authorities
appears to be akin to the method normally
resorted to by the land mafias in depriving
persons of their land. Such action of the
State-authorities shocks the conscience of
the Court.

8. In the light of the aforesaid facts,
this Court has now to consider as to in
what manner the petitioners can be
compensated for having been deprived of
their valuable land by the respondents,
without resorting to any procedure of law.

9. In the case of Bhimandas
Ambwani Vs. Delhi Power Corporation
2013(2) AWC 1795, the Apex Court,
while dealing with a case where the land
owner had been dispossessed without
resorting to any valid procedure for
acquisition of land, and where land had
already been utilized and the land owner
could
not
be
restored
back
into
possession,
it
was
held
that
the
respondents should make an award
treating the notification under section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act as having been
issued on the date of judgment, which in
that case was 12.2.2013. The present is a
similar case where the land of the
petitioners has been taken away without
following any procedure, and now their
consent is said to have been taken on
13.5.2010 (which may be voluntary or under
compulsion), and a meeting is held on the
same
day
i.e.
13.5.2010
and
the
compensation is assessed at the circle rate.
Admittedly as per Government Order dated
29.9.2001, the petitioners ought to have been
given compensation at the market rate, but
the same has been determined at the circle
rate, which is not in terms of the Government
Order. As per judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Bhimandas Ambwani (supra) and
also as per provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, the petitioners would be
entitled to solatium at 30% plus interest.

10. To put a quietus to the litigation so
that the agony suffered by the petitioners
may be put to rest, the petitioners have
agreed
to
the
assessed
amount
of
compensation at circle rate provided they
are paid 30% solatium and interest
thereupon. Keeping in view that the amount
was calculated at the circle rate as on the
date of the meeting i.e. 13.5.2010, we hold
that the same would be the amount of
compensation awarded under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act. Since the
assessed amount of Rs. 10,91,375/- was
paid to the petitioners on 23.6.2010, which
was immediately after 13.5.2010, the
question of payment of interest on the said
amount would not arise. We, however, hold
that the petitioners would be entitled to an
amount of 30% solatium on the assessed
amount of Rs. 10,91,375/-. We further hold
that on the said amount of solatium the
petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at
rate of 15% per annum from 13.5.2010 till
the date of actual payment. The said amount
shall be paid to the petitioners within three
months from today failing which the
respondents shall be liable to pay interest at
24% per annum from 13.5.2010 till the
date of actual payment.

11. Considering the fact that the land
of the petitioners was taken over 36 years
back, and they were paid compensation
only after filing of this writ petition, and
before that also the petitioners had to file
another writ petition earlier and had to
wait for more than three decades, because
of which their family members must have
suffered substantial loss, we direct that
the respondents shall be liable to pay cost,
which we assess at Rs. One lac. The said
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount of Rs. One lac shall also be paid
to the petitioners within the aforesaid
period of three months from today. The
Principal
Secretary,
Public
Works
Department, Government of U.P., shall
ensure that the order of this Court is
complied with within the specified time.

12. This writ petition stands allowed
to the extent as indicated above.

13. The office is directed to supply a
copy of this order to the learned Standing
Counsel so as to enable him to forward
the same to the Principal Secretary, Public
Works Department, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow for necessary compliance.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.23662 of
2012

Vijendra Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & An.r ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.P. Srivastava, Sri Amit Kumar Singh,
Sri Umesh Vats, Sri Ranjay Kumar, Sri
Sanjay Kumar Dwuvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A, Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava, Sri
Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Sri K.K. Rao.

Cr.P.C.-482-Quashing
of
criminal
proceeding-offense
under
section
420
I.P.C.-allegation
of
making
false
declaration
in
affidavit-regarding
non
practicing lawyer-very allegation stand
falsified-from judgment of High Court in
which petitioner-found surrendered his
registration
certificate-stood
confirmed
from record of Bar Council-continuance of
further proceeding amounts to wasted of
precious time of Court-in view of Apex
Court-decision-entire proceeding quashed.

Held: Para-11
Coming
to
the
instant
case,
the
prosecution case was based only on the
allegation that the applicant being an
enrolled
advocate
made
a
false
statement that he was not an advocate
so
as
to
obtain
registration
as
a
contractor. Whether
a person is a
practicing advocate or has surrendered
his license to practice can no better be
ascertained than from the record of the
Bar Council. Therefore, once from the
record produced by the Bar Council
before this Court in Writ C no.45873 of
2012, this Court, by its judgment and
order dated 11.10.2012, held that the
applicant had surrendered his certificate
of enrollment on 28th January, 1979 and
that he had not applied for renewal of
his
certificate
of
enrollment,
the
statement made by the applicant in the
affidavit of the year 2011 that he is not a
practicing Advocate, cannot be said to be
false or misleading so as to justify
drawing of proceedings against him.
Thus,
the
very
foundation
of
the
prosecution case stands demolished, by
a document which is none other than a
judgment
of
this
Court
and
the
correctness of which has not been
doubted by the learned counsel for the
parties, further, when there is no dispute
of it having attained finality. In such
circumstances, there is no shadow of
doubt
that
the
prosecution
of
the
applicant would be an exercise in futility
and waste of precious time of the court.
Holding
of
trial
now,
when
the
fundamental issue has already been
decided by this Court in favour of the
applicant (accused), would be travesty of
justice. Accordingly, this Court considers
it to be a fit case where the proceedings
deserve to be quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.)