# Smt. Haseena & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 784
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-28
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 25025 of 2023
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-haseena-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50961
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 64 & 67-A - U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016 - Rule 68 - Petitioners, claim to
be landless agricultural labourers living below
poverty line. Asserted that possession of 180
sq.m. of Banjar land, where they constructed
pucca house about 25-30 years ago. Pursuant
to USOF scheme, BSNL sought 200 sq.m land
for Tower installation. On Lekhpal's report,
authorities allotted 200 sq.m. of said plot for
BSNL tower under USOF scheme, trees were
auctioned
and
cut.
Petitioners'
house
demolished to facilitate tower installation.
Petitioners contend that their possession is
deemed settled, conferring perpetual rights.
Seek mandamus restraining eviction and
prohibiting installation of BSNL tower over
their house site - Petitioners invoke Section
67-A, Code, 2006 by writ of mandamus, but
respondents deny possession of petitioners in
any manner and no record supports their
claim, nor proceedings under Section 67 been
initiated against petitioners, as they were not
found in possession - Section 67 of Code,
2006 permits settlement of house sites in
favour of occupant provided occupant built
house which exists on 29.11.2012 subject to
occupant's category and land type within
prescribed area, but mandatory conditions
stand unfulfilled. (Para 2, 12, 13)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proviso to Section 28 of the Old Act has
been held to be applicable to acquisitions
made under the NH Act. Para 41 is
extracted below:

"41. There is no doubt that the
learned Solicitor General, in the aforesaid
two orders, has conceded the issue raised in
these cases. This assumes importance in
view of the plea of Shri Divan that the
impugned judgments should be set aside on
the ground that when the arbitral awards
did not provide for solatium or interest, no
Section 34 petition having been filed by the
landowners on this score, the Division
Bench judgments that are impugned before
us ought not to have allowed solatium
and/or interest. Ordinarily, we would have
acceded to this plea, but given the fact that
the Government itself is of the view that
solatium and interest should be granted
even in cases that arise between 1997 and
2015, in the interest of justice we decline to
interfere with such orders, given our
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136
of the Constitution of India. We therefore
declare that the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act relating to solatium and
interest contained in Section 23(1A) and
(2) and interest payable in terms of Section
28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made
under
the
National
Highways
Act.
Consequently, the provision of Section 3J
is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India and, therefore,
declared
to
be
unconstitutional.
Accordingly, Appeal @ SLP (C) No.
9599/2019 is dismissed."

16.

Applying
the
principles
enunciated in Tarsem Singh (supra), we
are of considered opinion that provision
relating to interest i.e. Section 80 of the Act
2013 being a more beneficial provision
would apply to acquisitions made under the
NH Act. This also expressly flows from the
mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 105
which
stipulates
that
while
making
applicable
the
provisions
relating
to
compensation,
rehabilitation
and
resettlement under the Act of 2013 to
acquisitions made under various Acts
specified in Schedule-1, the only exception
or modification permissible would be such
as would not reduce the compensation or
dilute the provisions of the Act, 2013.

17. As already noted, the interest
being part of compensation, the more
beneficial provision of 2013, Act relating to
interest i.e. Section 80 on the amount
determined in the first instance (by
Competent Authority under NH Act) would
undoubtedly apply to the acquisitions made
under the NH Act.

18. In the result, all the petitions
succeed and are allowed. The respondents
are directed to calculate the interest as per
the provisions of Section 80 of the Act
2013 and pay the same to the petitioners
within four weeks from the date of the
communication of the instant order.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 784
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2023 &
09.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 25025 of 2023

Smt. Haseena & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1 All. Smt. Haseena & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
785
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Pundir

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Abhishek Shukla (Addl. C.S.C.), Sri B.K.
Singh Raghuvansi, Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 64 & 67-A - U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016 - Rule 68 - Petitioners, claim to
be landless agricultural labourers living below
poverty line. Asserted that possession of 180
sq.m. of Banjar land, where they constructed
pucca house about 25-30 years ago. Pursuant
to USOF scheme, BSNL sought 200 sq.m land
for Tower installation. On Lekhpal's report,
authorities allotted 200 sq.m. of said plot for
BSNL tower under USOF scheme, trees were
auctioned
and
cut.
Petitioners'
house
demolished to facilitate tower installation.
Petitioners contend that their possession is
deemed settled, conferring perpetual rights.
Seek mandamus restraining eviction and
prohibiting installation of BSNL tower over
their house site - Petitioners invoke Section
67-A, Code, 2006 by writ of mandamus, but
respondents deny possession of petitioners in
any manner and no record supports their
claim, nor proceedings under Section 67 been
initiated against petitioners, as they were not
found in possession - Section 67 of Code,
2006 permits settlement of house sites in
favour of occupant provided occupant built
house which exists on 29.11.2012 subject to
occupant's category and land type within
prescribed area, but mandatory conditions
stand unfulfilled. (Para 2, 12, 13)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Manorey alias Manohar Vs Board of Revenue
(U.P.) & ors. AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4102

2. Baij Nath Vs Commissioner Varanasi & ors.
2020 (147) RD 360

3. Raju Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2020 (149) RD 434,
(Paras 11 to 17)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J. )

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pundir,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for
the state-respondents and Mr. B.K. Singh
Raghuvanshi,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no.6.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
Khata No.151 Plot No.163 area 0-4-0
Biswa situated in Village- Bhuribans,
Tehsil- Nakur, District- Saharanpur was
recorded as banjar in the basic year
khatauni of 1359 fasli. In the first
consolidation operation commenced in the
year 1967-68 New Plot No. 123 area 0-6-0
Biswa of Khata No. 115 was carved out
from old Plot No. 163/2 of Khata No.151.
According to petitioner, he belongs to OBC
category caste 'teli' Muslim by religion and
permanent resident of Village- Bhuribans
being landless agricultural labourer living
below
poverty
line.
According
to
petitioners they have constructed pucca
house with bricks and khaprail to its
appurtenant land in area of 180 square
meters and are in possession over the same
for last more than 25-30 years however
respondents are denying the petitioner's
possession in any manner. Department of
Telecommunications Government of India
under the Universal Service Obligation
Fund (USOF) has planned to provide
connectivity in India's rural and remote
area wherein BSNL has required cooperation from the Government of U.P. to
provide land measuring in area 200 square
meter free of cost in each village. On the
basis of report dated 22.10.2022 submitted
by Lekhpal, a letter dated 14.4.2023 has
been issued to BSNL for installation of
BSNL tower over Plot No.123 area 0.0300
hectare out of its total 0.0620 hectare.
Tehsildar vide letter dated 30.6.2023 issued
auction notice for cutting down the trees on
Plot No.123 accordingly trees were cut
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
down on 17.7.2023 in presence of revenue
authorities. According to petitioners their
house was demolished by the authorities on
22.7.2023 and started digging the ground to
facilitate the installation of BSNL Tower.
Hence this writ petition on behalf of
petitioners for mandamus commanding the
respondent authorities, Collector/District
Magistrate Saharanpur to prevent the
eviction of the petitioners' Pucca house
built with bricks and 'khaprail' to its
appurtenant land measuring in area about
180 sq.m. over Banjar land of Plot No.123
out of its total 0.0620 hectare ,existing
since before 29.11.2012,more than 25-30
years back, as by operation of law under
enactment of Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006, r/w Rule 68 of the U.P.
Revenue Code Rules,2016 the site of said
house shall be presumed to be held by
owner and deemed to be settled with the
occupant
thereof,
and
thereby,
the
petitioners shall be treated to have been
already perfected their perpetual rights and
title over the same, and further the BSNL
authorities maybe directed not be install the
proposed tower over/within the premises of
petitioners existing house on the proposed
Plot No.123,situated in Village- Bhuribans,
Tehsil-Nakur, District- Saharanpur, so that
their constitutional rights guaranteed under
Article 300A of the Constitution of India
may
be
safeguarded,
otherwise
the
petitioners' shall suffer irreparable loss and
injury.

3. This court on 7.8.2023 passed the
following order:-

"1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar
Pundir, learned counsel for petitioner
and
Sri
B.K.
Singh
Raghuvanshi,
learned counsel for respondent no. 6 and
Sri Dhananjai Singh, learned Standing
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 and Sri
Ramesh Prasad holding brief of Sri
Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned counsel
for respondent no. 5.

2. It is the case of the petitioner
that he was having a house fortified with
a boundary and the same has been
demolished on the behest of the portion
of land over which the construction has
been raised by the petitioner has already
been entered as Banjar in the revenue
records.
There
is
a
proposal
for
installation of tower by the respondent
no. 6 for smooth connectivity of the
telephone/mobile connections.

3. It is the admitted case on
behalf of the petitioner that the plot in
question
does
not
belongs
to
the
petitioner but at the same time the
occupation over the same is covered
under Section 67(a) of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 and the benefit of the same
may be extended in favour of him and
without
conducting
any
proceeding
under Section 67 of the Code of 2006 the
revenue authorities proceeded illegally
against the petitioner.

4. Sri Dhananjai Singh, learned
Standing counsel is hereby granted 10
days time to seek instructions specifically
over the issue whether any demolition
proceeding has been initiated? Whether
any co
nstruction is raised by the
petitioner over plot no. 123 situated at
Village Bhuribans, Tehsil Nakur, District
Saharanpur.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents prays for and are granted
two weeks time for filing counteraffidavit.

6. One week time thereafter is
granted for filing rejoinder affidavit, if
any.

7. Put up this case on 28.08.2023 as
fresh."
1 All. Smt. Haseena & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
787

4. In pursuance of the order dated
7.7.2023 passed by this court counter
affidavit as been filed by state as well as
short counter affidavit has been filed by
respondent no.6/BSNL. Petitioners have
filed their rejoinder affidavit also.

5. Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that petitioners belongs to OBC
category (teli) Muslim by religion and
permanent resident of village in question
being landless agricultural labourer is
entitled to benefit of Section 67-A of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 but respondent
authorities have illegally demolished the
petitioner's residential construction without
initiating proper proceeding in accordance
with law. He further submitted that land in
dispute was initially recorded as banjar in
revenue record and at present is abadi as
such petitioners are entitled to benefit of
Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
He further submitted that villagers of the
village in question have submitted affidavit
before the authorities that petitioners are in
possession of the plot for the last more than
5 years and their residential construction
without following procedure of law. He
further submitted that petitioners belong to
Muslim Community as such authorities
have proceeded with malice intention
against
the
petitioners.
He
further
submitted that title and entitlement of the
petitioners
being
infringed
which
is
guaranteed under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India as such petitioners are
entitled to the relief claimed in the writ
petition. He further placed the provisions
contained under Sections 64, 67 and 67-A
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as well as
Rule 68 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016
in support of his argument. He further
placed reliance upon the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2003
Supreme Court 4102 Manorey alias
Manohar Versus Board of Revenue (U.P.)
and Others in order to demonstrate that
petitioners are entitled to benefit of Section
67-A of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

6. On the other hand Mr. Abhishek
Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the state respondents submitted
that Plot No.123 area 0.06620 hectare is
recorded as category 5(3)- Bajar in the
revenue record. He further submitted that
there was no construction of the petitioners
over plot in dispute and the averments
made to this effect in the writ petition are
wholly false. He further submitted that in
order to provide proper mobile connectivity
to the villagers, the land in dispute was
proposed for installation of BSNL Tower
but the ownership of the land shall
remained with Gaon Sabha. He further
submitted that construction/installation of
BSNL Tower of BSNL Tower has been
completed. He further submitted that after
inspection/demarcation of the land in
dispute illegal construction of Mohar
Singh,Ratan and Bhullan were found
accordingly three cases under Section 67(1)
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 have been
registered
being
Case
No.
T202309600306164,
T202309600306165
and T202309600306166 which are pending
before Tehsildar. He further submitted that
petitioners have taken contradictory stand
in their defense by stating at one hand that
their residential construction is situated
over disputed land and on the other hand
stating that trees are situated over the land
in dispute after demolition of the house. He
further submitted that in view of the entry
of the plot in dispute as well as the other
facts relating to possession of the plot in
dispute petitioner is not entitled to the
protection of Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 and writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Mr. B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi,
learned counsel for the respondent no.6
submitted that state has given plot to
respondent
no.6
for
construction/installation of BSNL Tower to
provide mobile connectivity to the villagers
and the work has already been completed
as such no interference is required in the
matter. He further submitted that petitioner
is neither owner nor in possession of the
land in dispute as such petitioners are
entitled to claim any relief in the matter.

8. Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mani, learned
Counsel for the respondent no.5/Gram
Panchayat submitted that petitioners have
not found in possession of the land in
dispute as such petitioners cannot claim
benefit of Section 67-A of U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006. He further submitted writ
petition filed on behalf of petitioners for
mandamus claiming benefit of Section 67A U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in respect to
the plot in dispute is not maintainable
before this court.

9. I have considered the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

10. There is no dispute about the fact
that Plot No. 123 area 0.0620 hectare is
recorded as banjar class 5(3) in the latest
Khatauni of 1429-1434 fasli (1.7.2021 to
30.6.2027) as well as in C.H. Form 45
which have been annexed as Annexure
No.2 to the writ petition.

11. Petitioners are claiming benefit of
Section 67-A U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
read with Rule 68 of U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016 as such perusal of Sections
64,67-A and Rule 68 of U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016 will be relevant which is as
under:-

"U.P. Revenue Code, 2006

64. Allotment of abadi sites-(1) The
following order of preference shall be
observed in making allotment of land
referred to in Section 63-

(a) an agricultural labourer or a
village artisan residing in the Gram
Sabha and belonging to a Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other
Backward Classes or a person of general
category living below poverty line as
determined by the State Government.

(b) any other agricultural labourer
or a village artisan residing in the Gram
Sabha. (c) any other person residing in
the Gram Sabha and belonging to a
scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or
other Backward Classes or a person of
general category living below poverty
line
as
determined
by
the
State
Government:

Provided that preference will be
given
to
widow
and
physically
handicapped
person
within
same
category.

Explanation.-For the purposes of
this sub-section-

(1) "other backward class" means
the backward classes of citizens specified
in Schedule I of the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services (Reservation for Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (U.P. Act
No. 4 of 1994);

(2) "person of general category
living below poverty line" means such
persons as may be determined from time
to time by the State Government.

(3) In making an allotment under
this section, preference shall be given to
a person who either holds no house or
has
insufficient
accommodation
considering the requirements of his
family.
1 All. Smt. Haseena & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789

(4) Every land allotted under this
section shall be held by the allottee on
such terms and conditions as may be
prescribed[ : ]

[Provided that if the allottee is a
married man and his wife is alive, she
shall be co-allottee of equal share in the
land so allotted.]

Section 67-A. Certain house sites
tobe
settled
with
existing
owners
thereof.-(1) If any person referred to
in sub-section (1) of Section 64 has
built a house on any land referred to in
Section 63 of this Code, not being land
reserved for any public purpose, and
such house exists on the November 29,
2012, the site of such house shall be
held by the owner of the house on such
terms and conditions as may be
prescribed.

(2) Where any person referred to
in sub-section (1) of Section 64, has
built a house on any land held by a
tenure holder (not being a government
lessee) and such house exists on
November 29, 2000, the site of such
house,
notwithstanding
anything
contained in this Code, be deemed to be
settled with the owner of such house by
the tenure holder on such terms and
conditions as may be prescribed.

Explanation.-For the purpose of
sub-section (2), a house existing on
November 29, 2000, on any land held
by a tenure holder, shall, unless the
contrary is proved, be presumed to
have been built by the occupant thereof
and where the occupants are members
of one family by the head of that
family.]

U.P. Revenue Code Rules,2016

68. Settlement of house sites with
existing owners thereof (Section 67-A).-
(1) Where any person referred to in subsection (1) of Section 64 has built a house
on any land referred to in Section 63 of
the Code, not being land reserved for
any public purpose and such house exists
on twenty-ninth day of November 2012,
the site of such house shall be held by the
owner of the house on terms and
conditions prescribed in Rule 64.

Note.-For the removal of doubt it
is hereby declared that the maximum
area of the site settled under Section 67A(1) of the Code or the rules famed
thereunder shall not exceed two hundred
square metres.

(2) Where any person referred to in
sub-section (1) of Section 64 has built a
house on any land held by a tenure
holder (not being a government lessee)
and such house exists on twenty-ninth
day of November 2000, the site of such
house shall be deemed to be held by the
owner of the house on the following
terms and conditions-

(a) the maximum area of the site
settled under Section 67-A(2) of the Code
or the rules framed thereunder shall not
exceed two hundred square meters.

(b) the owner of the house as well as
his heirs shall have a heritable interest in
the site and shall also have unrestricted
right to use the trees and wells existing
on the site subject to existing rights of
easements.

(c) he shall have a right to use the
site for construction of a residential
house, subject to existing rights of
easement.

(d) the owner of the house shall not
be liable to pay to the tenure holder or
the State Government any future rent in
respect of the site.

(e) the succession over the site shall
be governed by personal law which the
house owner was subject to.
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(f) the owner of the house and his
heirs shall not be liable to ejectment on
any ground whatsoever.

(g) if the building is abandoned or if
the owner thereof dies without any heir
entitled to succeed, the land or site shall
escheat to the State.

(h) the tenure holder shall be
allowed remission of the proportionate
land revenue for the portion of his
holding settled under this rule with
house owners. The land shall also be
classified as abadi in the Khatauni
maintained under the Code."

12. In the instant matter petitioners
are claiming benefit of Section 67-A U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 in exercise of
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
of
Constitution of India by way of writ of
mandamus although respondent authorities
are
denying
the
possession
of
the
petitioners
in
any
manner
nor
any
document on record demonstrate that
petitioners are in possession over the plot in
dispute for the last 25 years. Respondents
have not initiated proceeding against the
petitioners under Section 67 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 as petitioners have not
found in possession over the plot in
dispute.

13. The scheme has been provided
under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 for settlement of the house site in
favour of occupant provided occupant built
a house which exists on 29.11.2012 and
occupant belong to particular category as
well as land should also be of particular
category upto certain area but all the
mandatory condition as mentioned above
are not fulfilled in the instant matter.

14. This court in the case reported in
2020 (147) RD 360 Baij Nath Versus
Commissioner Varanasi and Others as
well as 2020 (149) RD 434 Raju Versus
State of U.P. and Others has adjudicated
the same controversy. Paragraph Nos. 11 to
17
of
the
judgment
rendered
in
Raju(Supra) will be relevant for perusal
which are as under:-

"11. It is not disputed that land from
where the petitioners have been ordered to
be evicted, is recorded as 'Banjar'. It has
not been earmarked as an abadi site till
date and is therefore, not land referred to
under Section 63 of the Code.

12. Section 64 extracted above, shows
the order of preference to be followed up
while making allotment of an abadi site.
Highest in this order of preference are
agricultural labourers or village artisans
belonging to the scheduled caste or
scheduled
tribes
followed
by
other
backward classes and, thereafter, by
persons of general category living below
the poverty line.

13. None of the petitioners belongs to
the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe as
already noted herein above. Two of them
claim to belong to the backward class
while two appear to be from the general
category.

14.
Careful
perusal
of
the
applications under Section 67A, which are
stated to have been filed by the petitioners,
reveals that nowhere in these applications
have the applicants stated that no
agricultural labourers or village artisan
belonging to the scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe are residing in village
Pachrukhiya.
This
was
necessarily
required to be pleaded by them.

15. Merely because a person lower in
order of preference has encroached upon
Gaon Sabha land, he cannot and should
not be granted the benefit of Section 67A
unless and until he is in a position to
1 All. Smt. Haseena & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791
establish categorically that a person
higher in preference is not available in the
village. Any other interpretation of Section
67A would result in great injustice as an
unauthorized occupant would be liable to
be granted its benefit only on account of
him or her having illegally encroached
upon Gaon Sabha property, despite other
needier and persons higher in preference
being available in the village.

16. Therefore, and for the reasons
given above, this Court is constrained to
hold that not only is the land in issue in
this writ petitions not land governed by
Section 63 of the Code, as it has not been
reserved for allotment as abadi site, the
petitioners are also, prima facie, not
eligible to the benefit of Section 67A as
their applications are bereft of necessary
pleadings. Therefore on both counts the
benefit of Section 67A cannot be
extended to the petitioners. Although,
reference has also been made in the writ
petition as also the applications under
Section 67A to provisions of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, such reference or reliance, in my
considered
opinion,
is
not
tenable
because on date, as also on the date the
applications under Section 67A have
been filed by the petitioners, the said Act,
namely U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act stood repealed.

17. In view of the foregoing, these
writ
petitions
lack
force
and are
accordingly dismissed."

15. In view of the ratio of law laid
down by this court in Raju (supra) and
Bajnath (supra) petitioners are not entitled
to any type of declaration or settlement as
provided under Section 67A of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 in exercise of
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
of
Constitution of India by way of writ of
mandamus.

16. So far as case law of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Manorey alias Manohar
(supra) is concern, the ratio of Manorey
alias Manohar (supra) is not available to
petitioners as petitioners have failed to
demonstrate from any evidence on record
that petitioners were in possession over the
plot in dispute which is the mandatory
condition for settlement under Section 67-A
of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

17. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case no interference is
required in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India by way
of writ of mandamus.

18. Writ petition is dismissed
accordingly.
----------
(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,
J.)

1. The Bench Secretary of the Court
has placed the record of this case in the
chamber regarding some ambiguity in
respect to the judgment dated 28.11.2023
passed in the aforesaid petition.

2. The Court has perused the
judgment dated 28.11.2023 available on the
record as well as the uploaded judgment on
the official website of the Court. It reflects
that on account of some inadvertence, the
following particulars of some other case,
starting from the fourth line of sub-para
no.4 of paragraph no.3 (page no.4), has
been wrongly/ inadvertently uploaded on
the official website of the Court:

"Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Mr. Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel
for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Srivastava,
State Law Officer and Mr. Sher Bahadur
Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-
Land Management Committee.

2.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that the lease
granted in favour of petitioners has been
cancelled in arbitrary manner. He further
submitted that the revision has been also
dismissed without summoning the record
of the proceedings.

3. Matter requires consideration.

4. Issue notice to respondent nos. 5
to 11 returnable at an early date.

5. Steps be taken within two weeks.

6. Respondent nos.12 to 15 are
stated to be proforma respondents, as
such, notices to respondent nos.12 to 15
are dispensed with.

7. All the respondents including State
& Gaon Sabha shall file counter affidavit
within six weeks.

8. Petitioner will file rejoinder
affidavit within two weeks thereafter.

9. List this case in the additional
cause list on 5.2.2024.

10. The application for interim relief
shall be considered on the next date fixed
in the matter."

Order Date :- 30.11.2023

3. In view of above, the aforesaid
wrong particulars appearing in the fourth
line of sub-para no.4 of paragraph no.3
(page no.4) of the judgment dated
28.11.2023 stand deleted.

4. This order shall form part of the
earlier judgment dated 28.11.2023.

5. Office to do the needful.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 792
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-C No. 25856 of 2023

C/m, Lala Babu Baijal Memorial Inter
College, Hapur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Gautam Baghel, SriBabboo Ram

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Navin Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ritesh
Upadhyay, Sri Sukrampal

A. Educational Institutions - Jurisdiction
of District Inspector of Schools Under U.P.
Educational Institutions (Prevention of
Dissipation
of
Assets)
Act,
1974
-
Petitioners challenged a notice dated 31.07.2023
issued by the District Inspector of Schools,
Hapur, alleging it was beyond his jurisdiction
under the Act - Held, the notice seeking details
of immovable properties and compensation from
land acquisition was within the scope of "assets"
and "property" as defined under Sections 2(d)
and 8 of the Act, 1974, and the District
Inspector of Schools was competent to issue it
under the notification dated 07.05.1975, which
delegates authority to obtain asset details, and
the Government Order dated 06.06.2023. (Paras
5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23)

B. Statutory Interpretation - Purposive
Approach to "Assets" and "Property" -
Petitioners argued that the notice exceeded the
scope of "assets" as defined in the table under
Section 8 of the Act, 1974 - Held, applying
purposive interpretation, the term "assets" must
be read with the definition of "property" under
Section 2(d), which includes rights and interests
arising from immovable properties, such as
compensation from land acquisition - The
notice's demand for such details was covered
under "special details" in the Section 8 table,
aligning with the Act's objective to prevent