# Smt. Bitto Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 734
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 5837 of 2024
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-bitto-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54681
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Civil Law- The Constitution of India, 1950Article 226 - The Employees Compensation
Act, 1923-Section 17 - writ petition filed on
the ground that after passing of the order of the
Employees Compensation Commissioner, the
petitioner and respondent no. 3 had entered
into an agreement agreeing to settle the
differences
and
the
petitioner
has
also
undertaken not to initiate any legal proceedings
against the respondent no. 3 in pursuance of
the order of the Employees Compensation
Commissioner- Challenge to the order of
Employees Compensation Commissioner was
made on account of subsequent agreement
entered between the parties, and the said
agreement is held to be "null & void".-
Authorities
executing
the
order
of
the
Employees Compensation Commissioner are
directed to continue to recover the outstanding
amount but while recovering the said amount
they shall take into account the fact that
Rs.1,80,000/- has already been paid to the
petitioner and they shall also deduct the value
of the land transferred in favour of the
petitioner as per the prevailing circle rate.
(Para 25 & 26) (E-15)

## Text

734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
levy of penalty cannot sustain in the eyes of
law and the same is quashed.

43. In view of the facts as stated above
as well as law down in the aforesaid
judgments, the impugned orders are set
aside.

44. Accordingly, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

45. Any amount deposited by the
petitioners during the pendency of the
present proceedings, shall be refunded to
them along with interest @ 4% from the
date of deposit till the actual payment is
made, within a month from today from the
date of production of certified copy of this
order.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 734
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 5837 of 2024

Smt. Bitto Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pratyush Rawat, Aishwarya Mathur (Amicus
Quria) Rajan Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shambhunath Misra

Civil Law- The Constitution of India, 1950Article 226 - The Employees Compensation
Act, 1923-Section 17 - writ petition filed on
the ground that after passing of the order of the
Employees Compensation Commissioner, the
petitioner and respondent no. 3 had entered
into an agreement agreeing to settle the
differences
and
the
petitioner
has
also
undertaken not to initiate any legal proceedings
against the respondent no. 3 in pursuance of
the order of the Employees Compensation
Commissioner- Challenge to the order of
Employees Compensation Commissioner was
made on account of subsequent agreement
entered between the parties, and the said
agreement is held to be "null & void".-
Authorities
executing
the
order
of
the
Employees Compensation Commissioner are
directed to continue to recover the outstanding
amount but while recovering the said amount
they shall take into account the fact that
Rs.1,80,000/- has already been paid to the
petitioner and they shall also deduct the value
of the land transferred in favour of the
petitioner as per the prevailing circle rate.
(Para 25 & 26) (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rajan Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
petitioner,
Ms.
Aishwarya Mathur, learned amicus curiae
appointed by the Court, Shri Rahul Shukla,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Shri Shambhu
Nath
Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no. 3 and perused the material
available on record.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the
learned
Commissioner,
Workmen
Compensation/Additional
Labour
Commissioner, Hardoi wherein he has
passed the award in favour of the petitioner
along with all consequential benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
the son of the petitioner was in employment
of respondent no. 3 and while on duty on
18.10.2017 at 8:00 a.m. met with an
unfortunate accident, where a portion of
building of respondent no. 3 fell on her son
9 All. Smt. Bitto Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
735
Ram Veer, who received serious injuries
and subsequently succumbed to the same.

4. The petitioner made several
applications and met the employer i.e.,
respondent no. 3 seeking damages and
compensation on the ground of death of her
son
but
she
did
not
receive
any
compensation and accordingly, moved an
application
before
the
Employees
Compensation Commissioner for seeking
the same. Her application was duly
registered as Case No. WC 02/2018 and
notices were sent to the employer i.e.,
respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3
despite being served notices did not appear
before
the
Employees
Compensation
Commissioner and accordingly, by means
of order dated 15.02.2019, the proceedings
had proceeded ex-parte against him. The
petitioner adduced evidence before the
Employees Compensation Commissioner
with regard to the employment of her son
with respondent no. 3 and also that he had
met with an accident during the course of
the employment in which he died to the
injuries sustained therein.

5. In the latter part of the
proceedings, respondent no. 3 put in
appearance
before
the
Employees
Compensation
Commissioner.
The
respondent
no.
3
was
also
given
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses,
who had adduced the evidence before the
Employees Compensation Commissioner
but respondent no. 3 never availed of the
opportunity and same was closed on
16.06.2022 and again proceedings were held
ex-parte. The Employees Compensation
Commissioner
after
due
consideration
allowed the claim directing the respondent
no. 3 to pay compensation of Rs.10,28,430/-
along with interest at the rate of 6%. The
order of the Employees Compensation
Commissioner was passed on 23.08.2022.
The respondent no. 3 thereafter had moved an
application for recall on 11.01.2024, which
was rejected on 30.04.2024. While rejecting
the application for recall, a finding has been
returned that respondent no. 3 despite notice
has failed to appear before the Employees
Compensation Commissioner and also that
several opportunities were given to him
during the proceedings and he had only
sought to seek time to delay the proceedings
and hence his application was rejected.

6. Surprisingly, instead of respondent
no. 3 assailing the order of the Employees
Compensation
Commissioner
dated
23.08.2022 and 30.04.2024, it is the
petitioner, who is the claimant and on whose
behest, the proceedings were initiated by the
Employees Compensation Commissioner,
had approached this Court seeking a direction
to set aside the order dated 30.04.2024.

7. The present writ petition has been
filed on the ground that after passing of the
order of the Employees Compensation
Commissioner
dated
23.08.2022,
the
petitioner and respondent no. 3 had entered
into an agreement on 08.01.2024 agreeing to
settle the differences and the petitioner has
also undertaken not to initiate any legal
proceedings against the respondent no. 3 in
pursuance of the order of the Employees
Compensation Commissioner. It is on the
basis of the said agreement dated 08.01.2024
when the present writ petition has been filed
and also a prayer has been made for setting
aside
the
order
of
the
Employees
Compensation Commissioner.

8.
It
is
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances and especially finding that a
claimant in whose favour the order of
award has been passed by the Employees
Compensation Commissioner has been
736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
challenged, this Court had directed the
parties to be present in person before this
Court. It is when the parties approaches the
Court, it was found that the present writ
petition has in fact been sponsored by
respondent no. 3, who has given a small
plot of land to the petitioner and also given
her some money and on the pressure made
by the villagers, an agreement was entered
into between the petitioner and respondent
no. 3 wherein they have purportedly agreed
to settle the differences and the petitioner
had undertaken not to initiated any legal
proceedings
for
recovery
against
respondent no. 3.

9.
It
is
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances, this Court was of the view
that interest of the petitioner cannot be
served in the present petition in case it is
continued to be proceeded and prosecuted
in the manner in which it is, accordingly,
had appointed Ms. Aishwarya Mathur a
practicing lawyer of this Court to assist this
Court as amicus curiae. The amicus curiae
was in contact with the petitioner, who
informed her that respondent no. 3 has
given her Rs.50,000/- in cash and he had
proposed to transfer two biswa of land in
her favour. At that stage, only money had
been paid in cash to the petitioner but the
land had not legally been transferred in her
favour.

10.
It
is
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances
that
proceedings
were
continued and respondent no. 3 was asked to
pay the amount to the petitioner as directed
by
the
Employees
Compensation
Commissioner and during the pendency of
proceedings, the petitioner has started
constructing a small house on the land given
by respondent no. 3 and sum of Rs.1,80,000/-
has been given to the petitioner. The
payment of Rs.1,00,000/- has been deposited
in
Account
No. 025110100014674
in
Aryavart Bank on 14.08.2024. The amount of
Rs.20,000/- has been deposited in the same
account on 09.09.2024 and Rs.9,999/- on
17.09.2024
through
online
mode
and
therefore on totaling of sum, Rs.1,80,000/-
has been transferred to the account of the
petitioner. It is also noticed that even if, it is
admitted that amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has
been transferred by respondent no. 3 to the
account of the petitioner still the said amount
is about 20% of the amount awarded in
favour of the petitioner.

11. Learned amicus curiae has
submitted
that
the
agreement
dated
08.01.2024
entered
into
between
the
petitioner and respondent no. 3 itself is illegal
and arbitrary and dehors the expressed
provisions contained in Section 17 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923. It has
been submitted that Section 17 provides for a
clear injunction of any agreement being
entered into between the employer and the
employee, which has the effect of removing
or reducing the liability of any person to pay
compensation under the said Act.

12. For the sake of convenience,
Section 17 of the Employees Compensation
Act, 1923 is being quoted below:-

17. Contracting out.-Any
contract or agreement whether made
before or after the commencement of this
Act, whereby a 2[employee] relinquishes
any right of compensation from the
employer for personal injury arising out of
or in the course of the employment, shall be
null and void in so far as it purports to
remove or reduce the liability of any person
to pay compensation under this Act.

13. From the aforesaid, it is noticed
that the agreement dated 08.01.2024 is
9 All. Smt. Bitto Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
737
clearly hit by the provisions of Section 17
of the Act of 1923, inasmuch as by the said
agreement the entire liability of respondent
no. 3 has been removed. According to the
agreement, the petitioner has undertaken
not to initiate any legal proceedings to
recover the outstanding amount as directed
by
the
Employees
Compensation
Commissioner. In the teeth of provisions of
Section 17 such an agreement is clearly
illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be
declared null and void.

14. Accordingly, agreement dated
08.01.2024 is declared to be null and void
and in-operational. The Act of 1923 was
made to give protection to the employees,
who received injuries or died due to such
injuries
received
during
course
of
employment.

15. This Court in the case of M/s
Vasu Infrastructure Private Limited Vs.
State of U.P. and others in Writ C No.
26540 of 2019 by means of order dated
23.09.2019 has held as under:-

11. The objects of the
E.C.Act, 1923 came up for consideration in
the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Mohd. Nasir and Ors.4, and after taking
notice of the statutory provisions contained
therein it was held that the Act is a
beneficial legislation in so far as it
provides for payment of compensation to
workmen employed by the employers and
accordingly the provisions therein are to be
liberally construed keeping in mind the
legislative intent with a view to give effect
it its objects.
12. The E.C.Act, 1923
being thus a piece of social security and
welfare legislation with its dominant
purpose to protect the employees, the
provisions of the Act have to be interpreted
so as to subserve the object of the
legislation which is to make the employer
responsible for the loss caused to the
employee by injuries or death arising out of
and in the course of employment.

13. The provisions under the Act
provide for necessary measures to protect
the employees and their dependents from
the hardships arising from the accidents
occurring during the course of employment
and with this object in mind the rights of
the employees are to be generously treated
while applying the statutory provisions so
as to ensure a speedy and efficient
machanism for determination and payment
of compensation as per the provisions of
the Act.

14.
Applying
the
rule
of
beneficent construction, the provisions of
the E.C. Act, 1972 are to be interpreted so
as to give them a wide meaning rather a
restrictive meaning which may negate the
very object of the enactment. A beneficial
legislation, it is well settled, as to be
construed in its correct perspective so as to
fructify the legislative intent underlying its
enactment.

15. In construing a remedial
statute courts are to give it the widest
amplitude which its language would
permit. The principle of applying a liberal
construction to a remedial legislation has
been emphasised in the Construction of
Statues by Crawford5 pp. 492-493 in the
following terms:-

"...Remedial statutes, that is,
those which supply defects, and abridge
superfluities, in the former law, should be
given a liberal construction, in order to
effectuate the purposes of the legislature,
or to advance the remedy intended, or to
accomplish the object sought, and all
matters fairly within the scope of such a
statute be included, even though outside the
letter, if within its spirit or reason."
738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. To a similar effect is the
observation
made
by
Blackstone
in
Construction and Interpretation of Laws6,
by stating as under:-

"It may also be stated generally
that the courts are more disposed to relax
the severity of this rule (which is really a
rule of strict construction) in the case of
statutes obviously remedial in their nature
or designed to effect a beneficent purpose."

17. In the context of beneficial
construction
as
a
principle
of
interpretation, it has been observed in
Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes7
as follows:-

"...where they are faced with a
choice between a wide meaning which
caries out what appears to have been the
object of the legislature more fully, and a
narrow meaning which carries it out less
fully or not at all, they will often choose the
former.
Beneficial
construction
is
a
tendency, rather than a rule."

18. Further, in the same treatise,
in the context of industrial legislation, it
has been stated as follows:-

"Industrial legislation provides a
fruitful field for the application of the
tendency
towards
beneficial
construction..."

19. The principle of applying a
liberal construction to a labour welfare
legislation was emphasised in the case of
The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre &
Rubber Company of India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
The Management & Ors where in the
context of the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, it was observed as
follows:-

"35. ...We are aware that the Act
is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted
in the interest of employees. It is well
settled that in construing the provisions of
a welfare legislation, courts should adopt,
what is described as a beneficent rule of
construction. If two constructions are
reasonably possible to be placed on the
section, it follows that the construction
which furthers the policy and object of the
Act and is more beneficial to the
employees, has to be preferred..."

20. The mode of interpretation of
a social welfare legislation, in the context
of
the
provisions
of
the
Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946,
came up for consideration in the case of
B.D. Shetty & Ors. Vs. CEAT Ltd. & Anr.,
and it was held as follows:-

"12. ...a beneficial piece of
legislation has to be understood and
construed in its proper and correct
perspective so as to advance the legislative
intention underlying its enactment rather
than abolish it. Assuming two views are
possible, the one, which is in tune with the
legislative intention and furthers the same,
should be preferred to the one which would
frustrate it."

21. The principle of applying a
liberal
construction
to
a
beneficial
legislation having a social welfare purpose
was reiterated in the context of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in the case
of Allahabad Bank & Anr. Vs. All India
Allahabad
Bank
Retired
Employees
Association, and it was observed as
follows:-

"16.
...Remedial
statutes,
in
contradistinction to penal statutes, are
known as welfare, beneficent or social
justice oriented legislations. Such welfare
statutes
always
receive
a
liberal
construction. They are required to be so
construed so as to secure the relief
contemplated by the statute. It is well
settled and needs no restatement at our
hands that labour and welfare legislation
have to be broadly and liberally construed
having
due
regard
to
the directive
principles of State policy. The Act with
9 All. Smt. Bitto Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
739
which we are concerned for the present is
undoubtedly one such welfare oriented
legislation meant to confer certain benefits
upon the employees working in various
establishments in the country."

22. A similar view was taken with
regard to adopting the beneficial rule of
construction in respect of social welfare
legislation, in the case of Jeewanlal Ltd. &
Ors. Vs. Appellate Authority under the
Payment of Gratuity Act & Ors., wherein it
was stated as follows:-

"11. In construing a social
welfare legislation, the court should adopt
a beneficent rule of construction ; and if a
section is capable of two constructions, that
construction should be preferred which
fulfills the policy of the Act, and is more
beneficial to the persons in whose interest
the Act has been passed..."

23. Reference may also be had to
the case of Bharat Singh Vs. Management
Of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New
Delhi
&
Ors.
where
purposive
interpretation safeguarding the rights of
have-nots was preferred to a literal
construction in interpreting a welfare
legislation, and it was held as follows:-

"11....the court has to evolve the
concept of purposive interpretation which
has
found
acceptance
whenever
a
progressive social beneficial legislation is
under review. We share the view that where
the words of a statute are plain and
unambiguous effect must be given to them.
Plain words have to be accepted as such
but where the intention of the legislature is
not clear from the words or where two
constructions are possible, it is the court's
duty to discern the intention in the context
of the background in which a particular
Section is enacted. Once such an intention
is ascertained the courts have necessarily
to give the statute a purposeful or a
functional interpretation. Now, it is trite to
say that acts aimed at social amelioration
giving benefits for the have-nots should
receive liberal construction. It is always the
duty of the court to give such a
construction to a statute as would promote
the purpose or object of the Act. A
construction that promotes the purpose of
the legislation should be preferred to a
literal construction. A construction which
would defeat the rights of the have-nots and
the underdog and which would lead to
injustice should always be avoided..."

24. The aforementioned position
of law has been discussed in recent
judgments of this Court in U.P.S.R.T.C.
Thru Its R.M. Vikasnagar Kanpur Vs.
State Of U.P. And 3 Others and Nagar
Nigam Gorakhpur Thru Nagar Ayukt Vs.
Suresh Pandey And 2 Others.

25. In the case at hand the facts
as reflected from the order dated 28.7.2017
indicate that the Employees Compensation
Commissioner has duly taken note that
before filing of the claim petition the
requisite notice of claim under Section 10
had been duly served upon the petitioneremployer and upon registration of the
claim also a registered notice dated
8.1.2016 had been sent to the petitioner
and only thereafter the order dated
5.8.2016 was passed directing the case to
proceed exparte. It was subsequent thereto
that
the
Employees
Compensation
Commissioner
upon
taking
into
consideration the facts of the case and the
evidence on record had proceeded to allow
the
claim
petition
of
the
claimant
respondent.

26. The order dated 29.3.2019
passed upon the recall application filed by
the petitioner also takes note of the fact
that prior to filing of the claim petition the
claimant had served a registered notice
under Section 10 upon the petitioneremployer and in response to the same a
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reply had also been submitted by the
employer
admitting
the
factum
of
employment of the claimant with the
petitioner. The order also records that after
filing of the claim petition and despite
issuance of notice the petitioner did not
appear and allowed the case to proceed
exparte and only after passing of the order
dated 28.7.2017 awarding compensation
and upon issuance of a show cause notice
dated 9.12.2017 pursuant thereto the
petitioner-employer
filed
the
recall
application. The Employees Compensation
Commissioner has accordingly drawn an
inference that the petitioner deliberately
wanted to linger the proceedings and in the
facts of the case where the claimant had
suffered 100% disability and was not in a
position to contest the proceedings further,
taking into considering the larger interest
of justice the recall application has been
rejected.

27. The aforementioned order
passed by the Employees Compensation
Commissioner can also not be faulted with
for the reason that E.C.Act, 1923 is a piece
of social security legislation providing for
a speedy and efficient machinery for
determination
and
payment
of
compensation to the employees. It may also
be taken note of that as per the provisions
under Section 4A compensation is to be
paid as soon as it falls due. In this regard
reference may be had to the judgment in
the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs.
Srinivas Sabata and Ors., wherein it was
held that compensation becomes payable
on the date of the accident and not on the
date of determination of the amount
thereof. The relevant observations made in
the judgment are as follows:-

"7. Section 3 of the Act deals with
the employer's liability for compensation.
Sub-section (1) of that section, provides
that the employer shall be liable to pay
compensation if "personal injury is caused
to a workmen by accident arising out of
and in the course of his employment". It
was not the case of the employer that the
right to compensation was taken away
under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 because
of the institution of a suit in a civil court for
damages, in respect of the injury, against
the employer or any other person. The
employer therefore become liable to pay
the compensation as soon as the aforesaid
personal injury was caused to the workmen
by the accident which admittedly arose out
of and in the course of the employment. It is
therefore futile to contend that the
compensation did not fall due until after the
commissioner's order dated May 6, 1968
under Section 19. What the section
provides is that if any question arises in
any proceeding under the Act as to the
liability of any person to pay compensation
or as to the amount or duration of the
compensation it shall, in default of
agreement, he settled by the commissioner.

8. It was the duty of the appellant,
under Section 4A(1) of the Act, to pay the
compensation at the rate provided by
Section 4 as soon as the personal injury
was caused to the respondent.."

16. Applying the aforesaid principle to
the facts of the present writ petition, this
Court is of the considered view in absence
of the said agreement, the recovery should
have been proceeded against the respondent
no. 3 and the award, awarded by the
Employees Compensation Commissioner
deserves to be handed over to the petitioner
to which she is legally entitled.

17. This Court is also of the
considered view that once the agreement
dated 08.01.2024 has been declared null &
void, no benefit of the same would accrue
to respondent no. 3, who shall continue to
9 All. Smt. Bitto Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
741
be liable for payment of the award dated
23.08.2022 passed by the Employees
Compensation Commissioner in favour of
the petitioner.

18.
During
these
proceedings,
respondent no. 3 had also appeared before
this Court and he had also promised to
handover a portion of his land in favour of
the petitioner. There were certain doubts
with regard to the ownership of the land,
and to verify as to whether the said piece of
land is infact owned by the respondent no.
3, this Court had called upon the concerned
revenue authorities to be present in Court
and to verify the title of the said land.

19. In this regard, an affidavit has been
filed by learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel,. which has been sworn by Shri
Ajai Kumar, Tehsildar, Tehsil Shahabad,
District Hardoi. In the said affidavit it has
been submitted that to verify the ownership
and title of the said land, a revenue team
was constituted which they duly inspected
the Gata No. 185 and also prepared the spot
memo and all the stake holders were
present
when
the
proceedings
were
conducted.

20. Paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the
counter affidavit filed by the State, reads as
under:-

"9. That the perusal of the report
dated
04.09.2023,
spot
memo
dated
04.09.2024 and the site map dated
04.09.2024 reveal the following:-

a) That the original khatauni
landowners of Gata No. 185 are in
possession ofthe land on the basis of the
Vahami
Batwara
(oral
understading
between the co-holders) and on the basis of
the possession on the land in question the
site map was prepared.

b)
That
according
to
the
aforesaid site-map the portion identified
and marked as 'ABCD' is the land on which
the house of the petitioner Bitto Devi is
being constructed which is of 35 square
meter (3.5 X 10 sq. meter) and in front of
which the land shown and marked as
'CDEF' measuring 60 sq. meter (6 X 10 sq.
meter) is the 'sahan land'. The 'sahan land'
is covered from both sides with pillars and
is also in possession of the petitioner. Thus,
a total area of 95 sq. meters has been given
to the petitioner.

c) That the perusal of the site
map clarifies the fact that the house in
question
of
the
petitioner
is
being
constructed on the Gata No. 185 on the
portion on which there is possession of Om
Prakash and Munni Devi wife of Om
Prakash. Om Prakash is the real cousin
brother of the opposite party no. 3 Ganesh
Chandra. Om Prakash and Munni Devi
have agreed and permitted to give the 95
sq. meters [35 square meter (3.5 X 10 sq.
meter) marked as ABCD in the site map for
construction of the house and in front of the
constructed house the land shown and
marked as 'CDEF' measuring 60 sq. meter
(6 X 10 sq. meter) as the 'sahan land] to the
petitioner. The opposite party no. 3 Ganesh
Chandra,
Om
Prakash
and
Munni
Devihave also given an affidavit to give
effect to this agreement. The copy of the
agreement on affidavit dated 09.09.2024 by
the opposite party no. 3 Ganesh Chandra,
Om Prakash and Munni Devi giving an
area of 95 sq. meters to the petitioner is
annexed as Annexure No. A-8 to this
affidavit.

10. That thus on the basis of the
averments
as
submitted
herein
the
aforesaid land identified and marked as
'ABCD' in the site map is the land on which
the house of the petitioner Bittoo Devi is
being constructed which is of 35 square
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
meter (3.5 X 10 sq. meter) and in front of
which the land shown and marked as
'CDEF' measuring 60 sq. meter (6 X 10 sq.
meter) is the 'sahan land'. The 'sahan land'
is covered from both sides with pillars and
is also in possession of the petitioner. Thus,
a total area of 95 sq. meters has been given
to the petitioner and an agreement on
affidavit by the owners of the land who are
in possession of the same namely Opposite
party no. 3 Ganesh Chandra, Om Prakash
and Munni Devi has also been executed on
09.09.2024."

21. A copy of the agreement, which
has
been
entered
into
between
the
respondent no. 3 and all his brothers, who
are joint owner of the land in question has
also been recorded when they all jointly
transferred the said piece of land in favour
of the petitioner and accordingly, the said
land stands transferred in favour of
petitioner.

22. Accordingly, the ownership of the
piece of land situated in Gata No. 185
measuring 95 square meters is now beyond
pale of any doubt or would be subject
matter
of
any
litigation
after
the
compromise has been entered into between
all
the
stake
holders
including
the
petitioner, respondent no. 3 and his
relatives Om Prakash and Munni Devi and
according to the map land situated at
'ABEF' has been transferred in favour of
the petitioner.

23. It is open for the petitioner to move
an appropriate application for mutation and
once the said application is moved, the
revenue authorities are directed to pass an
order for mutation expeditiously within a
period of one month in favour of the
petitioner without considering that the same
land is under attachment in pursuance to the
order of the Employees Compensation
Commissioner and also duly considering the
agreement which has entered into between
the parties on 09.09.2024.

24. The petition was entertained only to
the extent that this Court wanted to ensure
compliance of the order of the Employees
Compensation
Commissioner
and
considering the fact that the petitioner is a
poor and illiterate lady, who has been forced
to enter into between an illegal agreement
and an effort was made to deny her claim to
which she was legally entitled as per the
order of the Employees Compensation
Commissioner. It is anyway the bounden
duty of the Superior Courts to do complete
justice.

25. In light of the above, considering the
fact that the challenge to the order of
Employees
Compensation
Commissioner
was made on account of subsequent
agreement entered between the parties, and
the said agreement has been held to be null &
void and there is no other ground remains for
the challenging the impugned order of
Employees Compensation Commissioner.
The writ petition must fail and accordingly it
is dismissed.

26. The authorities, who are executing
the order of the Employees Compensation
Commissioner
dated
23.08.2022
are
directed to continue to recover the
outstanding amount but while recovering
the said amount they shall take into account
the fact that Rs.1,80,000/- has already been
paid to the petitioner and they shall also
deduct the value of the land transferred in
favour of the petitioner as per the
prevailing circle rate.

27. This Court also appreciates the
work of Ms. Aishwarya Mathur, learned
9 All. Chandra Pal Verma Vs. State Information Commission, U.P. & Anr.
743
amicus curiae, who has assisted this Court
in arriving the aforesaid judgment. The
Legal Services Authority is directed to pay
remuneration to her within two weeks from
the date of copy of the order is produced
before him in accordance with the relevant
rules.

28.
With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, this petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 743
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 6444 of 2024

Chandra Pal Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission, U.P. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Lohitaksha Shukla, Tung Nath Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shikhar Anand, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,
Akhilesh Srivastava, Ratnesh Chandra

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,
1950-Right to information Act, 2005Sections
18
&
19-The
petitioner
challenged the actions of the State
Information Commission, U.P. and the
Lucknow Development Authority under
the Right to information Act-Petitioner
filed an RTI application on nine points
from the LDA-despite favorable orders
from the First appellate authority and
the State Commission, the LDA failed to
provide the requested information-The
commission imposed penalty on the
LDA's public information officer but did
not
ensure
that
the
requested
information
was
provided-Held,
the
court
emphasized
the
distinction
between sections 18 and 19 of the RTI
Act, reiterating that section 19 provides
a complete appellate mechanism for
obtaining information-Penalties under
section
18
do
not
substitute
the
obligation
to
ensure
information
disclosure-The
State
information
Commission is obligated to uphold the
RTI
Act's
objectives,
ensuring
transparency
and
accountability
in
public authorities-The court set aside
the impugned order and remanded the
matter to the State Commission.(Para 1
to 11)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Lok Nyayarth Sanstha Thru. its Gen. Secy Vs
St. of U.P., WP No. 7523 of 2015

2. CIC & anr. Vs St. of Manipur & anr.(2011) 15
SCC 1

3. Vishwamitra Bajpai Vs. St. Info. Commn. U.P.
& ors. , Writ-C No. 301 of 2024

4. Kishan Chand Jain Vs U.O.I. (2023) SCC
Online SC 1021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.
&
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. We have heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner at length and Shri Shikhar
Anand, who appears for the Respondent
no.1- State Information Commission and
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, who
appears on behalf of the Respondents no.2-
LDA.

2. This petition has been filed by the
petitioner for the following prayers:-