# Sidharth Singh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 797
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-14
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 2528 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sidharth-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48326
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Being predecessor-in-interest of deceased
land owner - after more than 40 to 50
years
petitioner
are
claiming
compensation - on account of possession
of their land taken by the St. Govt. way
back in the year 1970 - no issue raised by
the then owner or petitioners at any stage
- belated claim rejected - Writ Petition -
relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex
Court's in case of 'St. of Maharashtra Vs
Digambar' petitioners are not entitle to
any relief.(Para - 5, 7)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

4 All. Sidharth Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
passed by the appellate court, having
regard to Explanation I appended to Order
9 Rule 13 of the Code a petition under
Order
9
Rule
13
would
not
be
maintainable. However, Explanation I
appended to the said provision does not
suggest that the converse is also true."

21. What matters for exercise of
jurisdiction is the source of power and not
the
failure
to
mention
the
correct
provisions of law. Even in the absence of
any express provision having regard to the
principles of natural justice in such a
proceeding, the courts will have ample
jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte decree,
subject of course to the statutory interdict."

35. Thus, taking a holistic view, this
Court finds that the Sub-Divisional Officer
had erred in deleting the names of privaterespondents/tenure holders and also to
declare the land in question as 'abadi' vide
order dated 31.03.2006. Moreover, in
absence of any stay order passed in revision
even if the Sub-Divisional Officer passed
orders on merits on recall application, the
same cannot be said to be faulty. Even
otherwise by means of the order dated
02.06.2010
the
declaration
has
been
granted as sought by the petitioner and the
deletion of names of other tenure-holders
has also been rectified which is an outcome
of sound exercise of jurisdiction by the
Sub-Divisional Officer and this order dated
02.06.2010 has been affirmed in revision
which requires no interfere.

36. In view of the aforesaid, the
petition is completely devoid of merits and
is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2022)04ILR A797
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 2528 of 2022

Sidharth Singh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nipun Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Roy (Addl. C.S.C.), Sri M.J. Akhtar, Sri
P.K. Shukla

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226, - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Being predecessor-in-interest of deceased
land owner - after more than 40 to 50
years
petitioner
are
claiming
compensation - on account of possession
of their land taken by the St. Govt. way
back in the year 1970 - no issue raised by
the then owner or petitioners at any stage
- belated claim rejected - Writ Petition -
relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex
Court's in case of 'St. of Maharashtra Vs
Digambar' petitioners are not entitle to
any relief.(Para - 5, 7)

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. St. of Mah. Vs Digambar (AIR 1995 SC 1991)

2. Dharmbir & ors.Vs St. of Hary. & ors.(CWP
No. 4790 of 2015 Decided on Dt. 03.09.2015)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J. ,
& Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Challenge in the present petition is
to the order dated November 19, 2020 vide
which the claim of the petitioners for
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
payment of compensation on account of
alleged occupation of the land owned by
the
predecessors-in-interest
of
the
petitioners, by the State was rejected.

2. It is the case of the petitioners
that Late Bireshwari Prasad Narayan
Singh, their predecessor-in-interest, was
owner of the land. However, he had gone
abroad more than 40 years back and
settled there. The petitioners are living in
India. They are stated to be settled in
Bengaluru. They took note of the land
only after the death of Late Bireshwari
Prasad Narayan Singh on May 16, 2014.
The claim is that the land having been
taken by the State without acquisition,
they
are
entitled
to
receive
compensation.

3. On the other hand, the stand taken
by learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to
5 is that the possession of the land was
taken partially by U.P. Jal Nigam, partially
by Vidyut Vitaran Khand and partially by
Nagar Palika Parishad and land in question
was acquired way back in 1970, and, now
after more than 50 years the petitioners are
not entitled for any relief. In support of his
arguments, reliance has been placed on the
decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
State of Maharastra Vs. Digambar, AIR
1995 SC 1991. Reliance is also placed on
a Division Bench judgment of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in CWP No.4790 of
2015, Dharambir and others Versus State
of Haryana and others, decided on
3.9.2015.

4. After giving our thoughtful
considerations to the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that the writ petition is completely devoid
of any merit and thus, the same deserves to
be dismissed for the following reasons:

5. Issue regarding delay in filing
petition for similar relief came up for
consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Digambar's case (supra) where
the allegation was that some land owned by
the parties there was utilized in the year
1971-72 without acquisition, but the writ
petition was filed claiming compensation in
the year 1991. The same was dismissed on
account of delay and laches as the land
owners therein had failed to explain the
delay of 20 years in filing the petition. The
judgment of Bombay High Court was
reversed where it had directed for grant of
compensation. The relevant part thereof is
extracted below:

"25. In our view, the above allegation
in no way sufficient to hold that the writ
petitioner (respondent here) has explained
properly and satisfactorily the undue delay
of 20 years which had occurred between
the alleged taking of possession of his land
and the date of filing of writ petition in the
High court. We cannot overlook the fact
that it is easy to make such kind of
allegations against anybody that too against
the State. When such general allegation is
made against a State in relation to an event
said to have occurred 20 years earlier, and
the State's non-compliance with petitioners
demands, State may not at all be in a
position to dispute such allegation, having
regard to the manner in which it is required
to carry on its governmental functions.
Undue delay of 20 years on the part of the
writ petitioner, in invoking the High Court's
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of
the
Constitution
for
grant
of
compensation to his land alleged to have
been taken by the Government agencies,
would suggest that his land was not taken
at all, or if it had been taken it could not
have been taken without his consent or if it
was taken against his consent he had
4 All. M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799
acquiesced in such taking and waived his
right
to
take
compensation
for
it."
(emphasis supplied)

6. Similar issue came up for
consideration before the Division Bench
of this Court in Dharambir's case (supra)
wherein the writ petitioner claiming
compensation for alleged utilisation of
land for construction of irrigation channel
in the year 1953, filed in the year 2015
after 60 years was dismissed. It was
observed therein that post independence
there being few options form irrigation
available, the inhabitants of the villages
used to offer land to the State free of cost
for providing infrastructural facilities such
as construction of minor or road. Source
of irrigation was more valuable than the
value of land at that time, as it provided
source of livelihood.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and taking the above authorities
into
account,
in
our
opinion,
the
petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
The stand taken by the respondents is that
possession of the land was taken about 4050 years back and no issue was raised by
the then owner or the petitioners at any
stage, except the representation dated
March 8, 2018. The land was earlier
recorded in the name of the deceased
Bireshwari Prasad Narayan Singh, who
admittedly expired on May 16, 2014. It is
not in dispute that the petitioners are
living in Bengaluru, though it is claimed
that Late Bireshwari Prasad Narayan
Singh was living abroad.

8. Moreover, at this stage, after 50
years, no records will be available to
justify any action. The petitioners had
approached the authorities as well as this
Court after huge delay.

9. For the reasons mentioned above,
in our opinion, no case is made out for
interference in the present writ petition for
award of compensation to petitioners. The
writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)04ILR A799
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ-C No. 5256 of 2020

M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Adarsh Bhushan, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, Sri
Madan Lal Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Alok Kmar Singh (S.C.).

Civil
Law
-
Mines
And
Minerals
(Development And Regulation) Act, 1957;
Section 8A (Ins. w.e.f. 12-1-2015) - In
view of Section 8A w.e.f. 12-1-2015 all
mining leases shall be granted for the
period of fifty years - However Section 8A
(9) provides provisions of s. 8A shall not
apply to a mining lease granted before the
date of commencement of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Amendment Act, 2015, for which renewal
has been rejected, or which has been
determined, or lapsed - lease of the
petitioners expired on January 17, 2013 -
provisions of Section 8-A of the 1957 Act
came into force on January 12, 2015 -
Held - petitioners could not get their
lease, which had already expired, revived -
any leaseholder having suffered lapse,
would be dis-entitled to any benefit of the
amended provisions of the 1957 Act