# Shri Rakesh Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 327
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-04-16
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 41339 of 2009
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-rakesh-agarwal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45826
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Contract Law - Indian Contract
Act, 1872-Principle of contract law -
parties are bound by the terms and
conditions of the agreement - basic rule -
promissory must perform exactly what he
has undertaken to do - application of this
rule is absolute and no party to a contract
can avoid the same - where the terms
and conditions of the agreement/lease
expressly or impliedly provides that the
performance is to be done in a particular
manner, it must be performed in the
manner so provided. (Para - 30)

Corner plot allotted to the petitioner -
facing 18 mtrs. wide road and green belt
on one side - additional premium was
charged
from
him
-
Greater
Noida
Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA)
changed the location/ nature of the said
plot - after the execution and registration
of the lease deed - with the map of plot
allotted forming part of it with boundaries
- no opportunity of hearing given to
petitioner. (Para - 18,22,37)

HELD:- GNIDA is a "State" within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as
such its action must satisfy the principle of
Article 14 of the Constitution and have to be
reasonable and fair - alteration so made in the
nature of the plot is against the principle of fair
play which is heart and soul of Article 14 of the
Constitution - GNIDA directed to maintain the
nature of the plot allotted to the petitioner.
(Para - 37,39,45)

Petition allowed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1.D.D.A. & anr. Vs Joint Action Committee,
allottee of SFS flats & ors.(2008) 2 SCC 672

2.Sundstrand forms (P) Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. Manupatra UP/4759/2017

3.St. of Bihar & ors. Vs Jain Plastics &
Chemicals Ltd. (2002)1 SCC 216

4.Lal Bahadur Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2018)
15 SCC 407

## Text

6 All. Shri Rakesh Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
327
before all persons/authorities/bodies; (vi)
sign wherever required as guardian of SKM
including
for
discharging
any
person/authority/body
from
duty/obligation/liability owed to SKM (vii)
take possession and charge of all properties
movable or immovable to SKM; (viii) take
actions in law to protect interest of SKM;
(ix) sign all deeds, documents, cheques as
guardian of SKM; (x)petitioner No. 1 shall
also be entitled to incur expenses for the
family
welfare
purposes
including
marriages of her daughters namely Ms.
Ritika Mittal, Petitioner No. 3 & Ms.
Ruchika Mittal, Petitioner No. 4.

34. It is reiterated that the upon
fulfilment of requisite formalities, the conc
erned Banks (Respondents No. 5 and
6)/any other financial institutes will permit
the Petitioner No. 1, Uma Mittal to operate
the bank accounts and deal with other
financial affairs standing in the name of
SKM.

35. It is made clear that the Petitioner
No. 1, Uma Mittal shall not sell, alienate
encumber any of the immovable properties
of the SKM except with the express
permission of the Registrar General of this
Court. The same will however not come in
the way of the petitioner no. 1 letting out
the immovable properties of the SKM from
time to time and getting back the possession
thereof. The petitioner No. 1, Uma Mittal shall
comply with other requirements of being the
guardian of petitioner No.1. Needless to state,
such appointment is till SKM is unable to look
after his affairs and subject to revocation in
accordance with law.

36. It is further directed that the
Petitioner No. 1 would file a report with the
Registrar General of this Court every six
months, detailing the transactions in respect
of the assets of SKM.

37. Before parting, we wish to
recommend to the Central Government to
consider enacting an appropriate legislation
pertaining to appointment of guardians qua
persons lying in a comatose state, as no
remedy is provided in any statute to persons
in comatose/vegetative state, (as already
discussed in detail in earlier part of this
judgment),
unlike
legislations
for
appointment of guardians for minors and
persons with other disabilities, including like
mental retardation etc.

38. With these observations, this petition
stands disposed of finally.

39. The Copy of this Order be placed
before the Registrar General for necessary
follow up/compliance in the matter.

40. Registry is required to forward a
copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Law,
Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of
India, for information and appropriate steps.
----------
(2020)06ILR A327
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2020
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 41339 of 2009

Shri Rakesh Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.C. Rai
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, Sri
Nisheeth Yadav, Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh

A. Contract Law - Indian Contract
Act, 1872-Principle of contract law -
parties are bound by the terms and
conditions of the agreement - basic rule -
promissory must perform exactly what he
has undertaken to do - application of this
rule is absolute and no party to a contract
can avoid the same - where the terms
and conditions of the agreement/lease
expressly or impliedly provides that the
performance is to be done in a particular
manner, it must be performed in the
manner so provided. (Para - 30)

Corner plot allotted to the petitioner -
facing 18 mtrs. wide road and green belt
on one side - additional premium was
charged
from
him
-
Greater
Noida
Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA)
changed the location/ nature of the said
plot - after the execution and registration
of the lease deed - with the map of plot
allotted forming part of it with boundaries
- no opportunity of hearing given to
petitioner. (Para - 18,22,37)

HELD:- GNIDA is a "State" within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as
such its action must satisfy the principle of
Article 14 of the Constitution and have to be
reasonable and fair - alteration so made in the
nature of the plot is against the principle of fair
play which is heart and soul of Article 14 of the
Constitution - GNIDA directed to maintain the
nature of the plot allotted to the petitioner.
(Para - 37,39,45)

Petition allowed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1.D.D.A. & anr. Vs Joint Action Committee,
allottee of SFS flats & ors.(2008) 2 SCC 672

2.Sundstrand forms (P) Ltd. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. Manupatra UP/4759/2017

3.St. of Bihar & ors. Vs Jain Plastics &
Chemicals Ltd. (2002)1 SCC 216

4.Lal Bahadur Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2018)
15 SCC 407

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. &
 Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. In pursuance to the advertisement dated
03.02.2004 issued by the Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA),
the petitioner vide order dated 04.06.2004 was
allotted plot No.1 Cassia Fistula Estate, Sector
CHI-IV of 1000 sq. mtrs.

2. On actual measurement there was
some extra land of 22.4 sq. mtrs. in the
aforesaid plot for which additional premium
was demanded and charged.

3. After the petitioner completed all
formalities and fulfilled the conditions of
allotment by depositing the premium amount,
lease rent etc., a registered lease deed in respect
to the whole of the said plot having an area of
1022.4 sq. mtrs. was executed in his favour on
17.12.2008. Consequently, its possession was
also delivered on 18.12.08 to him.

4. The petitioner has preferred this writ
petition seeking a direction that the location of
the said plot from that of a corner plot adjoining
to the green belt may not be changed and to
declare any change or proposed change in this
regard to be illegal and arbitrary. In other
words, the plot should remain in its original
form as a corner plot facing green belt.

5. The argument is that the petitioner had
paid 15% additional amount as location charges
in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the allotment and that under the allotment order
as well as the lease deed, the petitioner was
allotted and delivered possession of a corner
6 All. Shri Rakesh Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
329
plot facing 18/24 meter wide road adjoining the
green belt. The said location cannot be changed
after the execution of the lease deed by
converting the green belt into an another plot.

6. The petitioner in response to one of his
letters pertaining to the lay out plan of the
scheme has been informed vide letter dated
30.06.2009 issued by the General Manager
(Niyojan & Vastu) that according to the
approved lay out plan plot No.1, Cassia Fistula
Estate, Sector CHI-IV which has been allotted
to the petitioner is not a corner plot.

7. It is alleged that this is totally in
contravention of the terms and conditions of the
allotment order and the lease deed. Therefore,
the status of the said plot as allotted and leased
out to the petitioner be restored as a corner plot.

8. We have heard Sri B.C.Rai, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.B.
Jauhari, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 (GNIDA) and have perused the
pleadings exchanged between the parties.

9. GNIDA in the counter affidavit has
admitted that in accordance with Clause A-7.2 of
the brochure which provide for location charges
for corner plots, plots facing park/green belt or plot
facing 18/24 meter wide road, premium of 5% for
the benefit of each type of location was payable
and that the petitioner had paid a total of
15% additional premium over and above
the fixed rate of premium on account of
superior location. However, the stand taken
is that the plot allotted to the petitioner was
not a corner plot. In fact the plan annexed
with the lease deed was not prepared by the
Planning Department and therefore, it was
incorrectly described as the corner plot.
The area of the green belt in the entire
sector is as per the approved standard and
does not stand reduced on account of
carving out of an additional plot in the area
which the petitioner claims to be green belt.
The lay out plan was amended after a
report was submitted by the Senior
Executive (Planning) on 05.12.2006 on the
recommendation made by the Deputy
General Manager (Planning) on 13.12.2006
for amending the lay out plan. Due to the
change in the lay out plan to some extent,
the boundaries of the plot allotted to the
petitioner was altered and at present the
plot allotted to the petitioner is not the
corner plot or adjacent to the green belt.

10. In short, the only issue which
arises in this petition, on the aforesaid
pleadings and rival claims, is whether the
location of the plot allotted to the petitioner
facing
18/24
meter
wide
road;
adjoining/facing park/green belt; and as a
corner plot for which the petitioner has
been charged additional premium to the
extent of 5% for each location benefit, total
15% of the fixed premium can be altered or
changed by the GNIDA after the execution
and registration of the lease deed simply by
an executive fiat.

11. There is no dispute that GNIDA
issued an advertisement on 03.02.2004
inviting applications for allotment/lease
of residential plots inter alia in Cassia
Fistula Estate, Sector CHI-IV.

12. In pursuance of the above
advertisement, the petitioner also applied for
allotment of one residential plot of an area of
1000 sq. mtrs by depositing the registration
money of Rs.3,10,000/-. The premium amount
was intimated to be Rs.26,22,600/- with
location charges for all the three beneficial
locations as 15% of the premium fixed.

13. The petitioner deposited all the
aforesaid amounts including the revised rates
and the lump sum premium amount whereupon
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lease deed was executed in his favour on
17.12.2008 and the possession was delivered on
18.12.2018.

14. The brochure containing the terms
and conditions of allotment/lease apart from
other things vide Class A-7 provided that the
area of the plot may slightly vary at the time of
handing
over
possession
and
therefore,
premium may also proportionately vary
accordingly. It further vide Clause A-7.2
provides as under:-

A-7.2 Location Charges

For Corner plots:

5% of the premium

For plots facing park/green belt:

5% of the premium

For plots facing 18/24 m. wide road:

5% of the premium

Note For plots having more than one

location benefit, location charges

will be additive.

15. The allotment-cum-allocation
letter dated 04.06.2004/17.07.2004 clearly
provides that the location of the plot
allotted to the petitioner is adjoining to
green belt and that it is a corner plot facing
18/24 meter wide road for which 15% of
the premium amount has been charged as
additional premium amount.

16. The possession certificate dated
18.12.2008 mentions the area and the
dimensions of the plot allotted to the
petitioner as 1022.40 sq. mtrs. and that its
boundaries are as per the lease plan
enclosed. The enclosed lease plan clearly
describes that the aforesaid plot No.1 is
having an area of 1022.40 sq. mtrs. and on
its one side is plot No.1-A & on the other
side is the green belt. The plot faces 18
meter wide road and on its back is plot
No.14. Thus, making the plot a corner plot
facing 18 mtrs wide road with green belt on
one side.

17.

The
lease
deed
dated
17.12.2008 is also on record and apart
from mentioning the other details of the
plot it mentions that the boundaries of
the plot are as per the lease plan. Again
the same lease plan is enclosed with the
lease deed as is part of the allotment
letter. It again describes the boundaries
of the plot with green belt on one side
and 18 meter wide road on the front
thus making it a corner plot.

18. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, it is
ample clear that the plot allotted to the
petitioner was a corner plot facing 18
mtrs. wide road and green belt on one
side for which additional premium was
charged from him.

19. The letter of the GNIDA dated
30.06.09
of
the
General
Manager
(Niyojan & Vastu) clearly states that
according to the approved lay out plan
the aforesaid plot is not a corner plot.

20. It is accepted in the counter
affidavit that in the area shown as green
belt adjoining to the aforesaid plot, an
additional plot has been carved out.
Thus, materially changing the location
of the said plot. On carving out of the
aforesaid additional plot not only the
adjoining green belt to the plot goes
away but it also reduces its status from
that of a corner plot to any other normal
plot.

21. There is no dispute that as per
the allotment order, lease deed and the
site plan forming part of it, the plot
allotted to the petitioner is a corner plot
6 All. Shri Rakesh Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
331
with green belt on one of its side and 18
mtrs. wide road in its front.

22. Now the sole question is
whether GNIDA is justified in changing
the location of the said plot after the
execution and registration of the lease
deed with the map of plot allotted
forming part of it with boundaries.

23. The submission that the site plan
annexed with the possession letter and the lease
dead is incorrect has no substance and cannot
be
accepted.
The
allotment
letter/order
mentions the same boundaries of the plot as
described in the lease plan. The lay out plan
was amended and corrected in the year 2006 as
stated earlier whereas the lease deed was
extended
and
registered
on
17.12.2008
enclosing the lease plan. The lease plan
enclosed with it is presumed to be according to
the amended lay out plan of the year 2006.
There is no explanation as to why the lease plan
could not be corrected as per the amended lay
out plan before making it a part of the lease
deed. No effort was made even to rectify the
allotment letter/order which describes the
boundaries in words also. Thus,GNIDA have
not cared at any stage to correct/rectify the
aforesaid lease plan despite coming to know
that it is incorrect.

24. Sri Jauhari, draws the attention of the
court to condition Q-1 of the brochure which
provides that the Chief Executive Officer or any
officer authorised by him has the right to make
such additions/alterations/modifications in the
terms and conditions of allotment from time to
time as may be considered just or/and
expedient.

25. A similar condition is contained in
Clause-F of part-3 of the lease deed which
provides that the Chief Executive Officer
reserves the right to make such alterations or
modifications in terms and conditions as may
be considered just and expedient.

26. A reading of the aforesaid two
Clauses, no doubt establishes that the Chief
Executive Officer has the power to add, alter or
modify
the
terms
and
conditions
of
allotment/lease but it fails to describe the
manner in which the same can be added, altered
or modified or till which stage it can be done.

27. The right reserved by the Chief
Executive Officer to alter and modify the terms
and conditions of allotment is in context with
the general terms and conditions viz the nature
of the lease, its term, mode of its cancellation,
the mode of payment and other liabilities and
not
in
respect
of
alteration
of
the
status/boundaries of the plot allotted which
would continue to be the same as mentioned in
the allotment letter, lease deed or the lease plan
unless changed in a legal and valid manner.

28. The Chief Executive Officer in
exercise of the powers conferred by Q-1 of
the brochure would have made changes in
the terms an conditions of the lease or the
nature of the plot before the execution of
the lease and its registration but it was not
done. He is not authorised or empowered to
change the terms and conditions of the
lease deed which has been registered
simply by an administrative order.

29. Even if clause-F of part 3 of the
lease is pressed in motion to change the
nature of the plot or its boundaries it has to
be done in accordance with law.

30. It is well acknowledged principle
of contract law that the parties are bound
by the terms and conditions of the
agreement and the basic rule is that the
promissory must perform exactly what he
has undertaken to do. The application of
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this rule is absolute and no party to a
contract can avoid the same. Thus, where
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
agreement/lease expressly or impliedly
provides that the performance is to be done
in a particular manner, it must be
performed in the manner so provided.

31. Accordingly, if the lease deed
provides for leasing out a plot of land as
described therein then the lease deed has to
be executed in that context and not
otherwise.

32. Thus in the case at hand the lease
has to be in respect of the plot as qualified
in the site plan enclosed with the lease. Any
deviation from the same has to be in
accordance of law and not otherwise i.e.
after following the procedure prescribed.

33. It is also settled legal position that
where an instrument is required to be
registered compulsorily either by virtue of
the statute under which it is executed or
registered any changes or alteration in the
said registered instrument has to be
necessarily by a registered instrument.

34. In the absence of any
registered
instrument
changing
the
location of the plot allotted from a
corner plot to any normal plot, is illegal
and unsustainable.

35.

The
change
of
the
status/boundaries
of
the
plot
as
disclosed in the lease deed would not
fall within the ambit of alteration or
modification
of
the
terms
and
conditions of the lease deed and that too
without executing a proper instrument.

36. Lastly, it has been submitted
that as the dispute in the petition has
arisen out of a concluded contract, the
petitioner is not entitle to maintain the
writ petition.

37. There cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that GNIDA is a "State"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and as such its
action must satisfy the principle of
Article 14 of the Constitution and have
to be reasonable and fair. Although, the
terms and conditions of the contract
entered into by GNIDA can be altered
or modified as provided but this cannot
be done unilaterally unless their exist
any provision either in the contract
itself or in law. The petitioner was not
taken into confidence or was given any
opportunity of hearing before changing
the nature of the plot allotted to him. It
was simply by a letter that he has been
informed that the plot allotted to him is
no longer a corner plot as on the area of
green belt a new plot has been created.

38. This is nothing but novation of
a binding contract which could not have
been done without making the proposed
change known to the petitioner.

39. Accordingly, the alteration so
made in the nature of the plot is against
the principle of fair play which is heart
and
soul
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution.

40. The effort made by Sri Jauhari,
to
get
the
petition
dismissed
on
technicality that it is not maintainable
as it arises out of a concluded contract
is
bereft
of
merit
as
in
Delhi
Development
Authority1
it
has
provided that when a contract emanates
from a statute or is otherwise governed
by the provisions thereof, the superior
court can also exercise the power of
6 All. Shri Rakesh Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
333
judicial review more particularly when
there is infringement of Article 14 of
the Constitution.

41. In Sundstrand Forms (P)
Ltd.2 another Division Bench of this
court was confronted with a similar
question as to the additional amount
payable as location charges in respect
of a corner plot or a plot facing 30 mtrs.
wide road, the court held that when the
premium of the plot was fixed and the
scheme provided that for the corner plot
5% of the premium and for the plot
facing 30 mtrs. wide road a further 20%
premium would be payable the allottee
is liable to pay the additional 25% for
the location charges and accordingly,
directions were issued to its Executive
Officer, NOIDA to execute the lease
deed of the plot in question and to
handover possession thereof.

42. The reliance placed by Sri
Jauhari upon State of Bihar3 to object
to the maintainability of the petition is
not of much help to him for the simple
reason that in the aforesaid decision
itself it has been held that the existence
of alternative remedy does not affect
the jurisdiction of the writ court though
it may be a ground for not entertaining
the petition and it is only where
seriously disputed questions or rival
claims arise out of a breach of contract
which
requires
investigation
and
determination on the basis of evidence
that the party can be directed to avail
the remedy of civil suit. Thus, the
jurisdiction of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution does not
stand ousted completely.

43. Moreover, in the instant case
the
petitioner
is
not
seeking
enforcement of a statutory contract. The
contract in the form of lease exists
between the parties and it has been
acted upon but in doing so the nature of
the plot leased out has been changed by
carving a new plot in the adjoining
green belt. This action is apparently
unfair and has been held to be violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution.

44. In Lal Bahadur4 more
popularly known as "Janeshwar Misra
Park" case it has been held that even the
statutory power to modify the plan so as
to change green belt into residential
area cannot be exercised in violation of
public trust doctrine. Therefore, the
area earmarked as green belt, park or
open space cannot be changed to
residential area. This is exactly the
position in the instant case. The area of
green belt adjoining to the plot allotted
to the petitioner has been converted into
one another plot for residential purpose
after the execution and registration of
the lease deed in favour of the
petitioner clearly describing the nature
of the plot. This action of GNIDA is ex
facie hit by the dictum of law laid down
in the above decision.

45. Accordingly, brushing aside
the objection as to the maintainability
of the writ petition as the action of the
GNIDA in altering the nature of the plot
allotted to the petitioner is unfair and
the alteration has not been done in a
valid manner as contemplated in law,
we issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the GNIDA to
maintain the nature of the plot allotted
to the petitioner i.e. plot No.1 Cassia
Fistula Estate, Sector CHI-IV of 1022
sq. mtrs. as a corner plot facing 18
mtrs. wide road with the green belt
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adjacent to it as has been described in
the leased plan forming part of the lease
deed.

46. The writ petition is allowed
with no order as to costs.
----------
(2020)06ILR A334
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Writ-C No. 42274 of 2019

Suneel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bharat Bhushan Paul, Sri Saurabh Pal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Cancellation of the Arms
licence - Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3) - Section 17 (7) - Section 18 of
the Arms Act - appeal before the
Commissioner - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
section - 307,section - 504 - order passed
by District Magistrate and Commissioner -
not sustainable in the eyes of law -
quashed - matter remitted back to the
District Magistrate - to pass a reasoned and
speaking order afresh, for restoring the
arms licence of the petitioner in accordance
with law. (Para -21)

Petitioner having a fire arms licence -
Petitioner involved in sole criminal case -
acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge -
conviction set aside in appeal or otherwise -
suspension or revocation shall become void
- arm licence has to be restored considering
the provisions contained under Sections
17(3) and 17(7) of the Arms Act, 1959 -
fire arm licence of the petitioner cancelled
in public interest - no incident of breach of
security of the public peace or public safety
at the behest of the petitioner - no criminal
history - police report does not indicate
that the petitioner had utilized the fire arm
during the said incicent - no such averment
was made by the authorities concerned.
(Para-19)

HELD:- Merely pendency of the criminal
case or with the apprehention that the
petitioner may be involved in future in any
other criminal case cannot be a ground for
cancellation of the arms licence under the
Arms Act, 1959, unless and until a clear
cutt finding is recorded by the Competent
Authorities that the possession of the fire
arms caused threatening of the public
peace and is danger for the safety of
human
being
which
the
Competent
Authorities fail to record any such finding in
the impugned orders.(Para-15)

Petition allowed.(E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1.Sheo Prasad Mishra Vs D.M., Basti & ors.
(1978) AWC 122

2.Rajendra Deo Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2012) 4 ADJ 716

3.Rajendra Pandit Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2012) 10 ADJ 435

4.Ram Charan Vs St. of U.P .& 2 ors. (2016) 11
ADJ 185

5.Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Vs St. of Bihar AIR
(1966) SC 740

6.Ram Murti Madhukar Vs D.M., Sitapur (1998)
16 LCD 905

7.Ganesh Chandra Bhatt Vs D.M. Almora , AIR
(1993) Allahabad-291

8.Habib Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2002) 44 ACC 783

9.Ashiq Hussain Vs Comms., Moradabad & ors.
(2009)
10
ADJ
635