# Smt. Candrawati & Others v. Board Of Revenue U.P

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 899
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-07-22
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ (B) Petition No. 16678 of 2006
- **Bench:** Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-candrawati-others-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-41708
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C.
Sri B.R. Verma
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri Ramesh Chandra
Sri Abhishek Goyal
Sri Ashish Gopal
Sri Arun Kumar
Sri V.V. Singh

Constitution
of
India
Art
226-Patta
granted by L.M.C. without following the
procedure-most of the allotees are relative
of village Pradhan-Writ Petition challenge
the order of Board of Revenue writ filed
after 8 years-plea the time consumed in
review
application-not
available-the
attempt to continue their illegal possession
for long period itself disqualify them
seeking interference by he Writ Courtpetition dismissed with cost of Rs.10000
on each of the petitioner

Held Para 23

No other point was pressed. I find no
merit in the writ petitions. Before saying
omega to the case, it is disturbing to
note the manner in which the present
writ petitions were filed. As already
stated above, these petitions have been
filed with considerable delay of years
altogether but without any sufficient
explanation. The petitioners appear to be
clever persons and they tried to install
the proceedings of their ejectment by
filing
review
application
before
the
Board of Revenue and undaunted with
their failure in the review application,
writ petition no.50632 of 2000 and writ
petition no.16678 of 2006 have been
preferred with considerable delay only
with a view to remain in occupation of
the disputed land somehow or the other.
Case Law Discussed
JT. 2010 (6) SC 41;AIR 1993 SC 852; (1994) 6
SCC 620; (1995) 1 SCC 242; AIR 1997 SC 1236;
AIR 1977 SC 781; AIR 1999 SC 2284; AIR 2003
SC 718; (2004) 7 SCC 166; JT 2010 (3) SC 510;
AIR 1994 SC 853
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

## Text

2 All] Smt. Chandrawati and others V. Board of Revenue, U.P.
899
occurrence, he gave telephonic message to
the police station concerned, according to his
version the deceased committed suicide, but
the applicant fled away from his Karkhana,
he was not present at the place of occurrence
at the time of the preparation of the inquest
report, the dead body was found on a chair,
according to the post mortem examination
report the deceased has sustained one firearm
wound of entry on his right parietal region of
head, it was having blackening and charring,
active role of taking to the place of
occurrence has been assigned, the deceased,
he was done to death, inside the Karkhana of
the applicant at that time he was catching
hold the deceased and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case the
applicant is not entitled to bail, the prayer for
bail is refused.

7. Accordingly this application is
rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ (B) Petition No. 16678 of 2006

Smt. Candrawati & Others
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.P. Paul
Sri B.B. Paul
Sri P.P. Paul
Sri S.S. Verma
Sri N.C. Nishad
Sri S.C. Verma
Sri S.S. Rajput
Sri R.B. Singh
Sri Vikram Nath

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.
Sri B.R. Verma
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri Ramesh Chandra
Sri Abhishek Goyal
Sri Ashish Gopal
Sri Arun Kumar
Sri V.V. Singh

Constitution
of
India
Art
226-Patta
granted by L.M.C. without following the
procedure-most of the allotees are relative
of village Pradhan-Writ Petition challenge
the order of Board of Revenue writ filed
after 8 years-plea the time consumed in
review
application-not
available-the
attempt to continue their illegal possession
for long period itself disqualify them
seeking interference by he Writ Courtpetition dismissed with cost of Rs.10000
on each of the petitioner

Held Para 23

No other point was pressed. I find no
merit in the writ petitions. Before saying
omega to the case, it is disturbing to
note the manner in which the present
writ petitions were filed. As already
stated above, these petitions have been
filed with considerable delay of years
altogether but without any sufficient
explanation. The petitioners appear to be
clever persons and they tried to install
the proceedings of their ejectment by
filing
review
application
before
the
Board of Revenue and undaunted with
their failure in the review application,
writ petition no.50632 of 2000 and writ
petition no.16678 of 2006 have been
preferred with considerable delay only
with a view to remain in occupation of
the disputed land somehow or the other.
Case Law Discussed
JT. 2010 (6) SC 41;AIR 1993 SC 852; (1994) 6
SCC 620; (1995) 1 SCC 242; AIR 1997 SC 1236;
AIR 1977 SC 781; AIR 1999 SC 2284; AIR 2003
SC 718; (2004) 7 SCC 166; JT 2010 (3) SC 510;
AIR 1994 SC 853
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J. )

1. All these writ petitions were heard
together and are being disposed of by a
common judgment.

2. These petitions arise out of
proceeding under section 198(4) of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. There are as many as
fifty petitioners in writ petition No.16678 of
2006 and the said writ petition is reported to
be barred by laches of eight years and
ninety two days. In this petition, the
petitioners have sought a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing
the
orders
dated
8.1.1988,
6.1.1997 and 29th of September, 1997
passed by the respondent nos.2 and 1
respectively.

3. The writ petition no.41847 of 1997
has been preferred by 37 persons wherein
orders dated 29th of September, 1997, 6th
of January, 1997 and 8th of January, 1988
has been sought to be quashed.

4. In the writ petition no.50632 of
2000 there are five petitioners seeking
Quashing of the orders dated 29th of
September, 1997, 6th of January, 1997 and
8th of January, 1988.

The background facts may be noticed
in brief.

5. The proceedings giving rise to the
present writ petitions were initiated against
the petitioners under section 198 (4) of the
Act for cancellation of Patta/lease granted to
them on the ground that these Pattas were
allotted in violation of the prescribed
procedure. The proceedings were initiated
on the application filed by one Soni and
four other persons. It was stated by them
that the Land Management Committee by
its resolution dated 5th of May, 1984
resolved to grant Pattas to such persons who
were not even resident of village Lalpur
Raiyatpur. The Pradhan of the village and
the members of the Land Management
Committee have executed the leases in
favour of fictious persons and thus caused
loss to the Gaon Sabha. Most of such
allottees are not eligible for grant of any
Patta. The persons to whom the Pattas have
been granted possessed land even more than
thirty bighas.
Gross
irregularity
was
committed while granting the Patta as no
Munadi etc. was done.

6. In nutshell, allegations of fraud,
collusion and malpractice of very serious
nature against the Pradhan and members of
Land Management Committee were set out
therein. It was further stated that the
Chairman of Management Committee and
other members of the Committee got the
leases in the names of their wives, relatives
and near and dear ones. On these allegations
the allotment of lease which was approved
by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 6th of
August, 1984 was challenged through the
application dated 11th of October, 1984 i.e.
shortly after the allotment. Notices were
issued to the allottees and their statements
were recorded.

7. The Additional Collector (Admn.)
by the order dated 8.1.1988 found that Rule
173 of the Rules framed under the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Rules was breached and gross
irregularity was committed in granting
Pattas. Consequently, it cancelled the leases.
The matter was carried in revisions before
the
Additional
Commissioner,
Agra
Division, Agra who by the order dated 28th
of February, 1994 recommended in favour
of the petitioners to the Board of Revenue.
The Board of Revenue by its order dated
6th of January, 1997 disagreed with the
2 All] Smt. Chandrawati and others V. Board of Revenue, U.P.
901
recommendations made by the Additional
Commissioner on the finding that the Rule
173 was breached, the allotments are null
and void and, consequently, it upheld the
order of the trial authority.

8. From the record of the writ petition
Nos.16678 of 2006 and 50632 of 2000, it
appears that the petitioners filed a review
application to review and recall the order
dated 6.1.1997. The review application was
dismissed on 29th of September, 1997. The
writ petition No.50632 of 2000 was
presented before the Stamp Reporter on 11th
of October, 2000 and was reported to be in
time up to 28th of December, 1997. In other
words, it was barred by laches of around
three years. The writ petition no.16678 of
2006 was presented before this Court on
22nd of March, 2006. The Stamp Reporter
has reported that the petition was in time up
to 28th of December, 1997 and was barred
by laches of eight years and ninety two
days.

9. Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for
the petitioners, submits two points for
consideration before this Court. Firstly, no
notice of hearing as contemplated under the
Act was given to the petitioners by the trial
authority and the allottees were not properly
described in the array of the parties.
Secondly,
the
Land
Management
Committee was not impleaded in the
proceedings as one of the parties. It was
also submitted that there is no material to
show that the applicants at whose instance
the machinery was set in motion are
'aggrieved persons' within the meaning of
Section 198 (4) of the Act.

10. In reply, Sri B.R. Verma,
Advocate, submits that it is a case of total
fraud on the part of the allottees, Pradhan
and members of the Land Management
Committee. The Pattas were granted to the
petitioners in utter disregard of statutory
provisions. The allottees were put to notice
and their statements were recorded by the
trial authority and submission to the
contrary is incorrect. No prejudice has been
caused to the petitioners; the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed as it is nothing but a
case of total fraud. Sri Rajesh Kumar,
learned brief holder on behalf of the State of
U.P., submits that it is a case where the
petitioners obtained the leases in question in
total violation of statutory provisions. None
of them deserve any sympathy of the Court.
The petitioners by adopting dilatory tactics
succeeded to prolong this simple litigation
by more than two decades.

11.

Considered
the
respective
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

12. Taking the first point first that
notice as required under Section 198 (5) of
the Act was not given, may be considered.
The contention is that subsection (5) of
section 198 mandatorily requires service of
a show cause notice on the person in whose
favour allotment or lease was made before
cancellation
of
allotment
or
lease.
Elaborating the argument, the learned
counsel for the petitioner placed strong
reliance upon the order of the revisional
court in this regard. The Court was taken
through the said order repeatedly. It was
submitted that the Additional Commissioner
on examination of the file reached to the
conclusion that no show cause notice was
issued to the allottees before cancellation
vide para 8 thereof. On a careful
consideration of the matter, it is not possible
to agree with the aforesaid submission.
Subsection (5) of section 198 of the Act
provides for service of a show cause notice
before cancellation, on the person in whose
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

favour the allotment or lease was made. The
said provision contains well known doctrine
of natural justice that no person shall be
condemned unheard. There is neither any
pleading nor proof that the allottees were
either not heard or not served by the trial
authority before passing of the cancellation
orders. It was rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the respondents, in
reply, that the allottees were permitted to
lead the evidence and their statements were
recorded.

13. Attention of the Court was invited
towards the order of the trial authority dated
8th of January, 1988. It is mentioned therein
that show cause notices were issued to the
allottees and all of them had appeared and
got their statements recorded and only one
point was raised on their behalf that due
procedure as prescribed for allotment or
lease was followed. The learned counsel for
the petitioners could not give any reply with
regard to the aforesaid statement as
contained in the order of trial authority.
There appears no plea, at least, none was
shown during the course of argument that
statement of fact as contained in the order of
trial authority referred to above in any
manner is incorrect. Sri Rajesh Kumar,
learned brief holder invited the attention of
the Court towards copy of the order sheet
filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition
no.59632 of 2000. Its bare perusal would
show that Ram Lal and Jag Ram, the two
allottees,
had
appeared
on
19th
of
September, 1986 and notices were directed
to be issued fixing 9th October, 1986 to
other allottees. There is, thus, no reason to
doubt about the service of notices on the
allottees/petitioners. Had notices were not
served on them, they could have filed an
application for recall of the exparte order
before the trial authority, a course which is
very natural in such matters. None of the
petitioners could dare to take the recourse to
any such procedure. Straight way two
revisions were filed which came for
consideration
before
the
Additional
Commissioner.
Even,
the
Additional
Commissioner, on whose order strong
reliance was placed, has noticed in the order
that notices were issued to the allottees.
However, according to him, these notices
were short of legal requirement. As under
the notices, the allottees were directed to
appear on a particular date. He categorised
the notices as notice of giving information
or letter of invitation. Evidently, therefore,
the
notices
were
issued
to
the
allottees/petitioners who appeared before
the trial authority without raising any
objection with regard to its invalidity or
vagueness etc.. This being so, the argument
of the petitioners that there is non
compliance of subsection (5) of section 198
of the Act falls down. The other aspect of
the plea is that petitioners have not taken
care to place a copy of the said notices
before this Court to arrive at a conclusion
that notice issued to them was not a notice
as required under subsection (5) of Section
198. Taking into consideration the aim and
object of the notice as contemplated under
subsection (5) together with the fact that the
petitioners did, admittedly, participate in the
proceeding before the trial authority and no
prejudice whatsoever has been caused to
them even if there was some irregularity in
the notice, the argument of the petitioner
has got no substance. It may be in the nature
of a technical objection but without any
substance.

14. A feeble attempt was made that
the addresses of allottees have not been
mentioned in the array of the parties. No
such objection appears to have been taken
by the petitioners before the authorities
below. The petitioners were made fully
2 All] Smt. Chandrawati and others V. Board of Revenue, U.P.
903
aware of the cancellation proceedings and
they took active part by getting their
evidence recorded. Even if their addresses
were not mentioned in the complaint filed
by the contesting private respondents, it is
inconsequential, having caused no prejudice
to the petitioners. Technically, the addresses
might not have been mentioned in the
complaint but it is mentioned therein that all
the allottees to whom the land was allotted
in pursuance of the resolution dated 5th of
May, 1984 approved on 6th of August,
1984 were parties to the proceedings.

15. Now, I take up the second point. A
reference was made to Rule 178 A(2) of the
Rules framed under the Act in support of
the plea that the Land Management
Committee is a necessary party and an
opportunity of hearing before passing of the
final orders is required to be given to it
along with the allottees of the land in
dispute. The Land Management Committee
was a party being opposite party no.1 as is
evident from the application filed by the
contesting respondents for cancellation of
leases granted to the petitioners. The said
provision has been made for benefit of the
Land
Management
Committee.
No
grievance has been raised by the Land
Management Committee to the effect that
opportunity of hearing was not afforded to it
before cancellation. It is not understandable
as to how the petitioners can raise any such
grievance
on
behalf
of
the
Land
Management Committee when the Land
Management Committee is not coming
forward. The said argument is wholly
untenable and is therefore, rejected.

16. Lastly, it was urged that an
application for cancellation of lease or
allotment can be filed only by a person
aggrieved by an allotment of a land, as
contemplated under subsection (4) of
section 198. The complainants, according to
the petitioners, were not aggrieved persons
and therefore they could not file the said
application. No such argument appears to
have been advanced before the Courts
below by the petitioners. The argument has
been sought to be raised for the first time
before this Court. It is difficult to find any
such ground in the writ petition No.16678
of 2006 filed by Smt. Chandrawati and
others through Sri B.B. Paul, advocate, who
appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The
said writ petition contains as many as ten
grounds, there is no such ground in this
regard. Nor it is possible to decipher the
said plea from the body of the writ petition.
The said argument is not required to be
considered even. Even otherwise also, I do
not find any merit therein. The petition for
cancellation was filed by the contesting
private
respondents
on
very
serious
allegations. A bare perusal of the said
application would show that the allotments
were made in violation of law. The
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
has been enacted with a purpose and object
to abolish the Zamindari system and settle
the land with the tillers of soil. The Act has
also taken care to provide land to landless
labourers and other weaker member of
society to enable them to earn their
livelihood and lead a decent and respectable
life. With these loud objects section 195 for
settlement of vacant land, the land vested in
the Gaon Sabha under section 117 and the
land which comes in possession of Land
Management Committee under Section 194
or under any other provision of this Act, has
been made. The idea and purpose is to
provide land to needy persons for their
upliftment. Obviously, the said provision
has not been made for greedy persons or
persons of means or persons belonging to
effluent class. A plain and simple reading of
the application filed by the contesting
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

private respondents gives a picture that the
allotments in question were made for
wrongful personal gains and not for the
uplift-ment of poor and needy persons of
the society. It is a case of greedy persons
and not of needy persons. There is no
averment in any of these three petitions
disputing the allegations, as contained in the
complaint, that the land was allotted to
needy persons, after due notice etc. as
required by law to eligible persons. Even
the persons having more than thirty bighas
of land have been given allotment by the
Land Management Committee in collusion
with the Gram Pradhan to benefit and
oblige their relatives, friends, near and dear
ones. The allottees are not residents of the
village in question and relatives of the
members
of
the
Land
Management
Committee have been benefited by such
allotments. A detailed procedure for
allotment of land has been prescribed by
section 198 of the Act. It provides various
categorise including preferential categories
to whom the allotments should be made in
order of preference. For the sake of
convenience subsection (1) of Section 198
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is reproduced
below:-

17. Section 198 -- "In the admission
of persons to land as [Bhumidhar with nontransferable rights] or asami under Section
195 or Section 197 (hereinafter in this
section transferred to as allotment of land)
the Land Management Committee shall
subject to any order made by a Court under
Section 178 observe the following order of
preference :

1[(a) landless widow, sons unmarried
daughters or parents residing in the circle of
a person who has lost life by enemy action
while in active service in the Armed Forces
of the Union;

(b) a person residing in the circle, who
has become wholly disabled by enemy
action while in active service in the Armed
Forces of the Union;

(c) a landless agricultural labourer
residing in the circle and belonging to a
2[Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe, other
backward class or a person of general
category living below poverty line];

(d) any other landless agricultural
labourer residing in the circle;

(e) a Bhumidhar, 3[***] or asami
residing in the circle and holding land less
than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres);

(f) landless person residing in the
circle who is retired, released or discharged
from service other than service as an officer
in the Armed Forces of the Union;

(g) a landless freedom fighter residing
in the circle who has not been granted
political pension;

(h) any other landless agricultural
labourer belonging to a 2[Schedule Caste,
Schedule Tribe, other backward class or a
person of general category living below
poverty line] not residing in the circle but
residing in the Nyaya Panchayat Circle
referred to in Section 42 of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947].

18. Rule 173 of the Rules provides
procedure for admission to land by
providing that the Land Management
Committee when it intends to admit any
person to land shall announce by beat of
drums in the circle of Gaon Sabha in which
the land is situate at least seven days before
the date of meeting for admission of land,
the number of plots, their areas and the date
on which the admission there to has to be
2 All] Smt. Chandrawati and others V. Board of Revenue, U.P.
905
made. Strikingly, it has been found by the
trial authority which finding has been
affirmed by the Board of Revenue that no
such Munadi by beat of drums in the circle
of the Gaon Sabha was made. A clear-cut
seven days notice is required to be given
before the date of meeting for admission of
land. It has been found as a fact that Munadi
was done on 1st of May, 1984 and the
resolution was passed within four days on
5th of May, 1984. The requirement of law
that there should be at least one week's
notice, has not been adhered to. Further, it
has been found that in the document
showing the Munadi, the plot numbers
intended to be leased out or its area have not
been mentioned. In other words, no
opportunity was given to the public at large
to come to know about the intended
allotment and as such the public failed to
apply for the allotment. At this juncture, it is
interesting to note that this part of the order
of the trial authority has not been touched or
disturbed by the Additional Commissioner
who recommended the petitioners' case
favourably.
The
Board
of
Revenue
examined this aspect of the case and
reached to the conclusion that due
procedure was not followed. It is also
important to note that no attempt was made
by the learned counsel for the petitioners to
challenge this part of the order of the Board
of Revenue. In other words, the fact that the
disputed allotments or leases were made in
utter violation of Section 198 and Rule 173
of the Rules is even acceptable to the
petitioners. The Apex Court in a recent
decision of Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. Vs.
Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. And others, JT. 2010
(6) SC 41 has after consideration of its
earlier judgment with regard to the point as
to when the discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
should be exercised, has held as follows:-

"................When a person approaches
a Court of Equity in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226/227 of the Constitution, he should
approach the Court not only with clean
hands but also with clean mind, clean heart
and clean objective. "Equally, the judicial
process should never become an instrument
of appreciation or abuse or a means in the
process of the Court to subvert justice."
Who seeks equity must do equity. The legal
maxim "Jure naturaw aequum est neminum
cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri
locupletiorem", means that it is a law of
nature that one should not be enriched by
the loss or injury to another. (vide The
Ramjas Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 852; K.P.
Srinivas Vs. R.M. Premchand & ors.
(1994) 6 SCC 620 and Nooruddin Vs. (Dr.)
K.L. Anand (1995) 1 SCC 242).

48. Similarly, in Ramniklal N. Bhutta
& Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
AIR 1997 SC 1236, this Court observed as
under:-

"The power under Article 226 is
discretionary. It will be exercised only in
furtherance of interest of justice and not
merely on the making out of a legal
point.....the interest of justice and the public
interest coalesce. They are very often one
and the same. ..... The Courts have to weigh
the public interest vis-Ã -vis the private
interest while exercising....any of their
discretionary powers (Emphasis added).

49. In M/s Tilokchand Motichand &
Ors. Vs. H.B. Munshi & Anr. AIR 1970
SC 898; State of Haryana Vs. Karnal
Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781; and Sabia
Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR
1999 SC 2284, this Court held that filing
totally misconceived petition amounts to
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

abuse of the process of the Court. Such a
litigant is not required to be dealt with
lightly, as petition containing misleading
and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve
an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the
process of the Court. A litigant is bound to
make "full and true disclosure of facts."

50. In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony
Bai & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 718; S.J.S.
Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 166; and
Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. Vs. Addl.
Commissioner (Admn), Bareily Division,
Bareily & Ors. JT 2010 (3) SC 510, this
Court held that whenever the Court comes
to the conclusion that the process of the
Court is being abused, the Court would be
justified in refusing to proceed further and
refuse relief to the party. This rule has been
evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a
litigant from abusing the process of the
Court by deceiving it."

19. This being so, no case for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been made out. In
this fact situation, when no notice was given
to the public at large and the allotments
were under secret cover illegally, it cannot
be
said
that
the
contesting
private
respondents are not person aggrieved within
the meaning of Section 198 (4) of the Act. It
is not a case of the petitioners that these
persons do not reside in the village in
question or in any manner are incompetent
for allotment of the land under the aforesaid
section.

20. To say least, the present case is a
case of fraudulent use and abuse of the
power conferred on the Land Management
Committee and the Pradhan to allot the
land.

21. The Apex Court in the case of S.P.
Chengalvarya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, AIR
1994 SC 853 has held that Court should not
lend its support to a tax evader, property
grabber or a persons who has not
approached Court with clean hands. A
person whose case is based on falsehood
has no right to approach the Court. He can
be summarily thrown out at any stage of
litigation.

22. It is equally settled that a fraud
vitiates every solemn act.

23. No other point was pressed. I find
no merit in the writ petitions. Before saying
omega to the case, it is disturbing to note
the manner in which the present writ
petitions were filed. As already stated
above, these petitions have been filed with
considerable delay of years altogether but
without any sufficient explanation. The
petitioners appear to be clever persons and
they tried to install the proceedings of their
ejectment by filing review application
before the Board of Revenue and undaunted
with their failure in the review application,
writ petition no.50632 of 2000 and writ
petition no.16678 of 2006 have been
preferred with considerable delay only with
a view to remain in occupation of the
disputed land somehow or the other.

24. The petitioners are required to be
dealt with firmly and therefore, it is
provided that each petitioner of the
aforesaid three writ petitions will be liable
to pay cost @ Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand). The Collector, Aligarh shall
recover the cost from them if not paid
within the period of one month and shall
deposit the said amount in the account of
public exchequer.
2 All] Devendra Kumar Jaisawal V. State of U.P. and others.
907

25. In view of the above discussions,
all the three writ petitions are hereby
dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable
by each petitioner individually within a
period of one month and are also required to
hand over the possession forthwith.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16935 of 2008

Devendra Kumar Jaisawal
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner
Sri Rama Nand Pandey,
Sri Pradeep Narain Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art 226-ServiceCompassionate
Appointment-U.P.
Recruitment
of
dependants
of
Govt.
servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974,
Rule 2 (a)-length of service of deceased
employee-requirement
of
three
years
continues service-held, not a sine qua non
for regular employees-direction issued for
providing appointment of petitioners

Held Para 9 and 10

On facts in the present case, it remains
undisputed that the petitioner's father had
been regularly appointed and, therefore,
the three years completion of service is not
a sine qua non for such an employee to
enable
his
dependant
to
claim
appointment under the Dying-in-Harness
Rules. The impugned order has, therefore,
been passed against records and by
misconstruing the Rules. The counter
affidavit also suffers from the same
infirmity.

In this view of the matter, the order dated
26.12.2007 is unsustainable. It is hereby
quashed. The respondent-Director shall
proceed to process the appointment of the
petitioner
under
the
compassionate
appointment rules forthwith and pass an
order within a period of six weeks from the
date of presentation of a certified copy of
this order before him.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A. P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Narain Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned standing counsel for the State.

2.

The
petitioner
claims
compassionate appointment after the death
of his father late Dr. Ram Pratap Jaisawal,
who died in harness within a short span of
time while working as Medical Officer.

3. The petitioner's father had been
selected in the year 1988 but on account of
pending litigations the appointment order
could not be issued and that took several
years. Ultimately, he came to be appointed
on 7th April, 2000. The appointment order
was issued after the litigation had come to
an end and the appointment was made on a
temporary basis against a substantive
vacancy. After selection, it was a regular
employment. Unfortunately, he died on
13th July, 2000 within a short span of
time.

4.
 The petitioner
applied
for
compassionate appointment and the same
has been rejected on the ground that the
petitioner's father had not completed three
years of regular service and, therefore, in
view of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of
Dependants of Government Servants Dying