# Smt. Ghazala Begum v. Mohd. Musarraf & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 700
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-16
- **Case number:** Transfer Application (Civil) No. 643 of 2022
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ghazala-begum-v-mohd-musarraf-ors-47975
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Transfer of Case - Code of
Civil Procedure,1908 - Section 24(1)(a) -
transfer
any
suit,
appeal
or
other
proceeding pending before it for trial or
disposal to any Court subordinate to it and
competent to try or dispose of the same -
The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Section 51 - Establishment of Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Authority(LARRA)
-
"Authority" , Section 3(e)(i) - appropriate
Government , Section 53 - Qualifications
for appointment as Presiding Officer -
12 All. Smt. Ghazala Begum Vs. Mohd. Musarraf & Ors.
701
LARRA not an established Civil Court, but
an adjudicating authority established by a
notification by the State Government.
(Para - 5)

Transfer application - seeking transfer - from
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Authority (LARRA), Allahabad - to
any other Court of competent jurisdiction -
ground - no incumbent Presiding Officer
functioning as LARRA. (Para - 2)

HELD:-LARRA is not a Court subordinate to this
Court within the meaning of Section 24(1)(a) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. LARRA,
described under the Act of 2013 as an
"Authority", may be regarded as a Tribunal
subordinate to this Court for the purpose of
superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution, but not a Court subordinate to this
Court under the Code. Transfer application not
maintainable. (Para -5 )

Transfer application rejected. (E-7)

## Text

700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therapy to inculcate in him the respect for
females of all the ages, learn the worth and
dignity of female body and grow into an adult
with a healthy mind inside. Thirdly, the aim
and object of the Juvenile Justice Act cannot
be achieved if crimes committed by juveniles
are not viewed from the angle of their own
welfare and concerns of society at large as
well. From this angle i.e., angle of the best
interest of the juvenile, the angle of his own
welfare and well-being and the angle of
striking a balance between the demands of
justice for both the sides including the
concerns of the society at large, the social
investigation report may give good indicators
to be followed. However, I hasten to add a
word caution that the social investigation
report which are ordinarily prepared without
proper research and in unscientific manner on
printed formats may not be wholly reliable,
even then a judicially trained mind may
search for clues and take assistance for
drawing a conclusion from this point of view.

22. The learned Court and the Board
took a concurrent view that it shall not at
all be fit to release the juvenile to his
parents or family members for his own
welfare and to serve the ends of justice.
This view cannot be faulted and I am in
agreement with the final conclusions
arrived at by the Juvenile Justice Board and
the appellate Court. There is no such
invalidity or impropriety in the order to
prompt this Court to interfere in the
impugned order in this revision.

23. The revision is, accordingly,
dismissed.

24. Copy of the order be certified to
the Court concerned.

25. The Court/concerned Board is
directed to expedite the hearing and
conclude the same at the earliest without
getting
influenced
by
any
of
the
observations made in this order.

Order Date :- 12.9.2022

Vik/-SFH

Note- Copy of the order be sent
to concerned Section of the Registry for
immediate compliance of direction given
in Para-1 of the order.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 700
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Transfer Application (Civil) No. 643 of 2022

Smt. Ghazala Begum ...Applicant
Versus
Mohd. Musarraf & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Sri Santosh Kumar
Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:

(A) Civil Law - Transfer of Case - Code of
Civil Procedure,1908 - Section 24(1)(a) -
transfer
any
suit,
appeal
or
other
proceeding pending before it for trial or
disposal to any Court subordinate to it and
competent to try or dispose of the same -
The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Section 51 - Establishment of Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Authority(LARRA)
-
"Authority" , Section 3(e)(i) - appropriate
Government , Section 53 - Qualifications
for appointment as Presiding Officer -
12 All. Smt. Ghazala Begum Vs. Mohd. Musarraf & Ors.
701
LARRA not an established Civil Court, but
an adjudicating authority established by a
notification by the State Government.
(Para - 5)

Transfer application - seeking transfer - from
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Authority (LARRA), Allahabad - to
any other Court of competent jurisdiction -
ground - no incumbent Presiding Officer
functioning as LARRA. (Para - 2)

HELD:-LARRA is not a Court subordinate to this
Court within the meaning of Section 24(1)(a) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. LARRA,
described under the Act of 2013 as an
"Authority", may be regarded as a Tribunal
subordinate to this Court for the purpose of
superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution, but not a Court subordinate to this
Court under the Code. Transfer application not
maintainable. (Para -5 )

Transfer application rejected. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

Heard
learned
Counsel
for
the
applicant in support of the application.

2. This transfer application has been
moved, seeking transfer of Case No. 30 of
2019, Mohd. Musarraf v. State of U.P. and
others,
from
the
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority,
Allahabad1
to
any
other
Court
of
competent jurisdiction.

3. The ground for transfer is that there
is
no
incumbent
Presiding
Officer
functioning as the LARRA. This Court
required the Registrar General to submit a
report in the matter after verification. It
transpires that the fact is correct that there
is no Presiding Officer incumbent to
discharge the functions of the LARRA for
the time being. This Court, however,
notices that the LARRA is an "Authority"
established by the appropriate Government
under Section 51 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 20132 for the purpose of
providing speedy disposal of disputes
relating to land acquisition, compensation,
rehabilitation and resettlement. The said
Authority, which can be one or more, is to
be
established
by
notification.
The
appropriate Government is defined under
Section 3(e)(i) of the Act of 2013 to mean
the State Government in relation to
acquisition of land situate within the
territory of the State. Since the acquisition
here relates to a land situate in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, the LARRA at Allahabad or
elsewhere would be established by the
Government of U.P. through a notification.
The territorial jurisdiction of the LARRA,
wherever established, is also to be specified
by the State Government under sub-Section
(2) of Section 50 of the Act of 2013.
Section 53 spells out the qualifications for
the Presiding Officer of the LARRA, which
reads :

53.
Qualifications
for
appointment as Presiding Officer.-(1) A
person
shall
not
be
qualified
for
appointment as the Presiding Officer of an
Authority unless,--

(a) he is or has been a District
Judge; or

(b) he is a qualified legal
practitioner for not less than seven years.

(2) A Presiding Officer shall be
appointed
by
the
appropriate
Government in consultation with the
Chief Justice of a High Court in whose
jurisdiction the Authority is proposed to
be established.
702 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. The Presiding Officer of the
LARRA is an appointee of the State
Government. In the event he is a serving
District Judge, the appointment would be
on deputation, of course, with this Court's
permission on the administrative side. In all
other
contingencies
contemplated
by
Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (1) of
Section 53, the appointment of the
Presiding Officer of the LARRA is to be
made by the State on such terms and
conditions as the law prescribes. Section 54
of the Act of 2013 spells out some of these
conditions.

5. The trappings and the essential
character of the LARRA show it to be not an
established Civil Court, but an adjudicating
authority established by a notification by the
State Government for the purpose indicated in
Section 51 of the Act of 2013. The Presiding
Officer of the said Authority is also to be
appointed by the State Government. The
Presiding Officer in one contingency may be a
serving District Judge, who could be appointed
on deputation with this Court's permission.
Else, the Presiding Officer recruited from any
other source would be appointed by the State
Government, of course, in consultation with the
Chief Justice of the High Court, in whose
jurisdiction, the Authority is proposed to be
established. By no means, therefore, the
LARRA is a Court subordinate to this Court
within the meaning of Section 24(1)(a) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 19083. The LARRA,
described under the Act of 2013 as an
"Authority", may be regarded as a Tribunal
subordinate to this Court for the purpose of
superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution, but not a Court subordinate to this
Court under the Code.

6. In this view of the matter, this
transfer application is not maintainable. It
is, accordingly, rejected.

7. This order will, however, not
prevent the applicant from seeking such
remedies as may be advised
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 702
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Appeal U/s 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996 No. 16 of 2022

U.P.E.I.D.A. ...Appellant
Versus
M/S Sahakar Global Ltd. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Brijesh Kumar, Amal Rastogi, Utkarsh
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Pritish Kumar

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Section 9 - Interim measures - Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 - R. 1 -
Grant of Injunction - Bank Guarantee -
principles for grant or refusal to grant of
Injunction to restrain enforcement of a
bank guarantee - If the bank guarantee is
conditional, then, if the conditions have
not been fulfilled, injunction, against
encashment
and
invocation,
may
unquestionably follow - If, however, the
bank guarantee is unconditional, then
injunction
can
be
granted
only
if
egregious fraud, irretrievable injustice, or
special
equities/
exceptional
circumstances, exist, and not otherwise -
Fraud - mere pleadings do not make a
strong case of prima facie fraud, which
had to be shown by "material and
evidence" - fraud must be pleaded and
proved and it cannot be presumed - a
fraud in the execution of the Bank