# Smt. Kalindi Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 819
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 58143 of 2012
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kalindi-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53766
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The petitioner applied for a loan to establish a
brick kiln under the Margin Money Scheme (a
subsidy granted by the Khadi and Village
Industries Commission or K.V.I.C.) for rural
employment generation-The bank sanctioned a
loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- The respondent bank
failed to release the Margin Money of Rs.
3,00,000/- despite the petitioner completing all
formalities-The claim for subsidy was rejected
by KVIC, based on inspection reports.

Headnotes
Civil law- Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Rural Employment Generation
Programme
(R.E.G.P.)-Margin
Money
Scheme-Eligibility-Margin
Money
assistance under R.E.G.P. is available
exclusively for new projects sanctioned
under the scheme-the inspection reports
confirm that a unit claiming the subsidy is
not a new establishment but an old,
previously closed unit, the claim for
Margin Money is justifiably rejectedPetition dismissed.

Held
The court held that the petitioner failed to
establish a new unit as mandated by the
R.E.G.P.
Scheme-The
rejection
of
the
petitioner's claim for Margin Money by Dy.
Director,KVIC, vide impugned order dated
22.05.2008 was rightly made-The decision
was based on two inspection reports which
confirmed that no new brick kiln was
installed at the site, thereby rendering the
unit ineligible under the REGP normsHence, The impugned order is justified, and
does not require any interference.(Para 5 to
15) (E-6)

List of Keywords
Margin Money Scheme, Khadi and Village
Industries
Commission
(K.V.I.C.),
Rural
Employment Generation Programme(R.E.G.P.),
Brick Kiln, Village Chorpa, Inspection Reports,
New Project/New Unit, Existing Units.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APELLATE JURISDICTION: WRIT-C
No. - 58143 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

SMT. KALINDI SINGH Vs STATE OF
U.P.THRU SECY. & ORS.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Petitioner:
Mr. D.B Yadav , Advocate
Advs. for Respondent:
 Mr. N. Mishra, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. V.K.
Srivastava, Advocates

## Text

8 All. Smt. Kalindi Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
819
process of the Court by approaching the High
Court and the very entertainment of review
petitions (after condoning a long delay of 221
days) and then reversing the earlier orders was
an affront to the order of this Court. However
the learned Judges deciding the case have
nowhere in the course of their judgment relied
on doctrine of merger for taking the view they
have done. A careful reading of this decision
brings out the correct statement of law and
fortifies us in taking the view as under."

(emphasis supplied)

9. Nevertheless, to first address
applicant's ground for review, applicant's
contention is presence of error apparent
because according to it, possession was
taken on 4th August, 1992 but the Division
Bench referred to possession with State as
purportedly evidenced by certificate dated
6th January, 2003. In relied upon paragraph
reproduced above, we see clear finding of a
fact that when possession was shown to be
given to Kanpur Development Authority
vide certificate dated 6th January, 2003, the
Division Bench, from perusal of the
certificate of possession itself, said it
clearly showed that the lands were under
cultivation of (writ) petitioners even at the
time of preparation of the certificate, while
constructions were shown on the remaining
land. The Bench went on to say that it
establishes,
purported
possession
of
respondents
(review's
applicant)
vide
certificate dated 6th January, 2003 was a
mere paper transaction. Writ petitioners
had actual physical possession over the
land in dispute even thereafter and till the
date of judgment. The Division Bench was
dealing
with
petitioners'
claimed
possession at the time it prepared the
certificate. On perusal of it, said Bench
appreciated review applicant to be in
purported possession inasmuch as, it sought
to deliver the possession to Kanpur
Development Authority. By relied upon
paragraph in the judgment, the Division
Bench did not say review applicant had
come into possession vide said certificate
dated 6th January, 2003, for us to conclude
error apparent. Those were findings of facts
and inferences drawn thereupon. It follows,
State being aggrieved by the findings was
advised to prefer SLP for grant of leave by
the Supreme Court, to admit the matter as
an appeal before it. There is no disclosure
by
review-applicant,
on
discovery
subsequent to passing of the judgment
which even by due diligence it could not
lay its hands upon earlier. Thus, the urged
upon ground, said to be for review, is
neither
based
on
new
materials
subsequently discovered nor error apparent.

10. For reasons aforesaid, the delay is
condoned and the review application,
admitted. It is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 819
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ C No. 58143 of 2012

Smt. Kalindi Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.B. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri N. Mishra, Sri Rajeev Sharma, Sri V.K.
Srivastava

Issue for Consideration
820 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The petitioner applied for a loan to establish a
brick kiln under the Margin Money Scheme (a
subsidy granted by the Khadi and Village
Industries Commission or K.V.I.C.) for rural
employment generation-The bank sanctioned a
loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- The respondent bank
failed to release the Margin Money of Rs.
3,00,000/- despite the petitioner completing all
formalities-The claim for subsidy was rejected
by KVIC, based on inspection reports.

Headnotes
Civil law- Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Rural Employment Generation
Programme
(R.E.G.P.)-Margin
Money
Scheme-Eligibility-Margin
Money
assistance under R.E.G.P. is available
exclusively for new projects sanctioned
under the scheme-the inspection reports
confirm that a unit claiming the subsidy is
not a new establishment but an old,
previously closed unit, the claim for
Margin Money is justifiably rejectedPetition dismissed.

Held
The court held that the petitioner failed to
establish a new unit as mandated by the
R.E.G.P.
Scheme-The
rejection
of
the
petitioner's claim for Margin Money by Dy.
Director,KVIC, vide impugned order dated
22.05.2008 was rightly made-The decision
was based on two inspection reports which
confirmed that no new brick kiln was
installed at the site, thereby rendering the
unit ineligible under the REGP normsHence, The impugned order is justified, and
does not require any interference.(Para 5 to
15) (E-6)

List of Keywords
Margin Money Scheme, Khadi and Village
Industries
Commission
(K.V.I.C.),
Rural
Employment Generation Programme(R.E.G.P.),
Brick Kiln, Village Chorpa, Inspection Reports,
New Project/New Unit, Existing Units.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APELLATE JURISDICTION: WRIT-C
No. - 58143 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

SMT. KALINDI SINGH Vs STATE OF
U.P.THRU SECY. & ORS.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Petitioner:
Mr. D.B Yadav , Advocate
Advs. for Respondent:
 Mr. N. Mishra, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. V.K.
Srivastava, Advocates

(Delivered by Hon'ble Praveen Kumar
Giri, J.)

The present writ petition has been
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India wherein the petitioner has made
the following prayers :

1) Issue a writ or direction in the
nature of writ of mandamus directing the
respondent no.2 to release the amount of
Margin Money Scheme Rs.3,00,000/- in the
account of the petitioner.

2) Issue a writ or direction in the
nature of writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to restrain the respondent
bank to not compel the petitioner to deposit
the amount of Margin Money Scheme.

3) Issue a writ or direction in the
nature of writ of mandamus directing the
respondent bank to refund the excess
amount so deposited by the petitioner
before him.

Further, vide order of this Court
dated October 20, 2022, the petitioner
amended the the writ petition by adding the
following prayer :

"Issue a Writ order or direction in the
nature of writ of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 22.05.2008 passed
by the respondents which received to the
petitioner in the counter affidavit as
8 All. Smt. Kalindi Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
821
Annexure No.C.A.6 as well as amend the
paragraph no.23 of the writ petition."

FACTS

2. The factual matrix of the present
writ petition is delineated below:

a. The petitioner applied for a
loan to establish a brick kiln in a rural area
under the Scheme of Margin Money, a
subsidy granted by the Khadi and Village
Industries
Commission
(for
short
'K.V.I.C.')
for
generation
of
ruler
employment.
The
application
of
the
petitioner was accepted by the K.V.I.C. and
its recommendation for granting the loan
was sent to the respondent Bank. On
October 31, 2002, the bank sanctioned a
loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- by taking a pre
deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. From the loan
amount of Rs.9,50,000/-, the petitioner
purchased construction materials including
cement and bricks and other required
materials for establishing the brick kiln on
November 5, 2002.

b. The petitioner repaid the
significant part of the loan amount within
time except an amount of Rs. 2,45,503/-.
However, the respondent bank failed to
release the Margin Money of Rs. 3,00,000/-
up to 28th September, 2004 which was
recommended by the K.V.I.C., though the
petitioner had completed all the formalities
for that and the respondent Bank had
obtained a receipt of the payment of margin
money from the petitioner on August 14,
2007.

c. The petitioner, hoping the
subsidy would be released, did not deposit
the remaining amount of loan i.e. Rs.
2,45,503/-. This amount has since grown to
over Rs. 4,00,000/- due to accrued interest
and now the respondent bank is compelling
the petitioner to pay the full, updated amount.

d.
The
petitioner
made
representations
before
the
authority
concerned with latest reminder on July 18,
2012 alleging that she was not aware of the
rejection of her claim by the authority
concerned on May 22, 2008.

e. In the meantime, inspection of
the petitioner's unit was done by a team
consisting of officials from the Bank,
K.V.I.C, etc. on two occasions i.e. on
February 4, 2005, and November 2, 2006. On
both the occasions, the Inspection Team
found no new brick kiln installed at village
Chorpa. The reports reveal that there was an
old brick kiln in village Chorpa which was
closed four to five years ago.

f. Thereafter, the claim of the
petitioner for subsidy under Margin Money
Scheme was rejected vide impugned order
dated May 22, 2008 passed by Deputy
Director/ In-charge, Regional Office, Khadi
and
Village
Industries
Commission,
Gorakhpur on the basis of the reports of the
Inspection Teams.

g. The petitioner claiming herself
to be unaware of the rejection of her claim,
presented this writ petition seeking
direction upon the respondents to release
the margin money, however, after the
receipt of counter affidavit, she came to
know about the rejection order and,
therefore, she added a new prayer for
quashing the impugned order.

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners has made the
following submissions:
822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

a. The petitioner though fulfilled
all the criteria for receiving the margin
money under the Scheme and completed all
formalities yet the authority had not
released the margin money.

b. On the application of the
petitioner, the KVIC recommended for
grant of loan by the Bank to establish a
brick kiln under the Scheme. Thereafter, an
amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was sanctioned
by the Bank after taking pre deposit money
of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner repaid the
loan amount, however, the margin money
was not released in her favour.

c. The team which inspected the
spot where the brick kiln of the petitioner
was installed had demanded illegal money
for release of the margin money, which was
not paid by the petitioner and, therefore, the
report was submitted against her.

d. The petitioner was never made
aware of the impugned order until filing of
the
counter
affidavit
by
respondent
authorities
and,
therefore,
the
order
impugned is liable to be set aside.

CONTENTIONS
OF
RESPONDENTS

4. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents has rebutted the
arguments of petitioner and made following
submissions:

a. Inspection of the petitioner's
unit was done by a team consisting of
officials from the Bank, KVIC, etc. on two
occasions i.e. on February 4, 2005, and
November 2, 2006. On both the occasions,
the team found no new brick kiln at village
Chorpa; rather, there was an old brick kiln
that had been closed four to five years ago.

b. The above spot inspection was
done not by any individual but by a team of
officials from three different departments
and on two different dates by different
officials.

c. On the basis of the above spot
inspection report, the petitioner's claim for
margin money was rejected vide impugned
order dated May 22, 2008 as no new brick
kiln was found to be installed at Village
Chorpa and the claim of the petitioner was
not in consonance with the standards of
Rural Employment Generation Programme
(Gramodyog Rojgar Yojna) (for short
R.E.G.P.).

d. The respondents have annexed
copies
of
Inspection
Reports
dated
February 4, 2025 (annexure 4) and
November 2, 2006 (annexure 5) and the
Scheme of R.E.G.P. (annexure 7) to
substantiate their response.

ANALYSIS

5. I have given our thoughtful
consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and
have also perused the relevant records of
the case and the affidavits filed on behalf of
both the parties.

CONCLUSION

6. The petitioner's claim for margin
money was rejected on 22.5.2008 by
Deputy
Director/In-charge,
Regional
Office, Khadi and Village Industries
Commission, Gorakhpur; on the basis of
the inspection done by a team of officials
from the Bank, the KVIC, etc. on two
occasions i.e. on February 4, 2005, and
November 2, 2006. Upon reaching the spot
where the brick kiln was claimed to be
8 All. Smt. Kalindi Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
823
established by the petitioner under the
Scheme of R.E.G.P., the team found that no
new brick kiln had been installed in Village
Chorpa, which was the basis for the
petitioner's claim for margin money.
Reasons assigned by the authority for
rejection of the petitioner's claim are
quoted below :

"इकाई की पररयोजना बैंक शाखा द्वारा गांव चोरपा
के किए स्वीकृत ककया गया है, िेककन गांव चोरपा में पूवज की
भौकतक सत्यापन टीम ने दशाजया है। कक गांव चोरपा में ईट भ्‌ट्ठा नही
पाया गया, गांव चोरपा में पुराना भ्‌ट्ठा था, जो िगभग 4-5 विज पूवज
बन्द हो गया था। इसकिए (sic.) भौकतक सत्यापन टीम ने इकाई
को माकजजन मनी का पात्र नहीं दशाजया है इकाई का सेिटैक्स न.
एमयू-0058618 चोरपा किा का कदनांकः 15.01.1997 से
प्रभावी है तथा िामाथी ने बाद में सेिटैक्स न. एमयू-
00518718 कदनांकः 15.01.2003 से ग्रांव सरवां के किए
प्रभावी है। आर.ई.जी.पी. के मानकों के अनुसार इकाई माकजजन मनी
की पात्र नही है। जैसाकक पूवज की भौकतक सत्यापन टीम ने दशाजया
है।"

7. The relevant provision of the
Scheme i.e. Rural Employment Generation
Programme (R.E.G.P.) (Gramodyog Rojgar
Yojna), annexure No.7 to the counter
affidavit, is quoted below :

"K
(xi).
Margin
Money
assistance is available only for new project
sanctioned specifically under the REGPGramodyog Rojgar Yojna. Existing units
are not eligible under the Scheme."

8. In the first Inspection Report dated
February 4, 2005, the inspecting team
observed that on physical inspection of the
site, they found no chimney at the spot. The
report further revealed that there was only
an old pit at the spot. On enquiry, they
found that the brick kiln had been closed
four to five years ago. The team concluded
that because no chimney was installed and
the brick kiln was closed, the unit was not
eligible for margin money. A checklist of
relevant documents and their status was
also annexed to the report.

9. The second spot inspection report
dated November 2, 2006 reveals the same
finding that was observed in the first report.
The
Inspection
Team
scrutinized
a
checklist of 15 documents that were
required for the claim of the petitioner for
margin money. The inspection team further
observed that permission was granted to
establish a unit in village Chorpa under
R.E.G.P. scheme; however, on physical
inspection of the spot, no brick kiln was
found in Village Chorpa. An old brick kiln
was found which had been closed four to
five years ago. The Team concluded that
the petitioner is not eligible for margin
money as per the norms of the R.E.G.P.
Scheme.

10. The impugned order passed on
May 22, 2008 was already communicated
to Branch Officer, Sanyukta Gramin Bank,
Branch Badhua Godam, Mau, as well as the
petitioner
along
with
the
Director
(R.E.G.P.), Khadi and Village Industries
Commission, Mumbai and State Director,
State Office, Khadi and Village Industries
Commission,
Lucknow.
However,
the
petitioner claims that she came to know
about rejection of her claim only after filing
of the counter affidavit by the respondents
wherein the order of rejection was annexed.

11. Be that as it may, on due
consideration of the arguments on behalf of
the learned counsel for the parties, the
reports of the two Inspecting Teams, the
R.E.G.P. Scheme and the finding recorded
by the Deputy Director in the impugned
order dated May 5, 2008, I am of the view
that as per the R.E.G.P. Scheme, the
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner had to establish a new unit but
she failed to do so, therefore, her claim for
margin money has been rightly rejected by
the authority concerned.

12. It is trite law that a writ of
mandamus and/or writ of certiorari would
only be issued by this Court when the
Court finds palpable error or manifest
illegality in the procedure followed by the
State authorities. Furthermore, if the
authorities have acted within jurisdiction
and passed an order based on the materials
available, no writ would lie.

13. In the present factual matrix, it is
clear that the authorities have acted on the
basis of two inspection reports that have
indicated that the petitioner has not acted in
terms of the Rural Employment Generation
Programme and has not created a new
project to become eligible under the above
programme. In fact, the petitioner has not
been able to controvert the statements made
in the counter affidavit.

14. In light of the same, this Court is
of the view that the impugned order is
justified, in accordance with law and does
not require any interference.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition
lacks merit and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 824
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 3000065 of 1997

Smt. Afsar Jahan ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vimla Mishra, Harguru Charan, Mohammad
Aslam Khan, Pt. S. Chandra, Vinod Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., C.P.M. Tripathi, Fateh Bahadur
Singh, Ripu Daman Shahi, Syed Aftab
Ahmad, Syed Ali, Veer Keshwar Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the orders passed by
Prescribed Authority under U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 thereby
declaring certain lands belonging to Waqf as
surplus and subsequent proceedings initiated
by State authorities pursuant thereto, could be
sustained in law, in spite of abatement of
original ceiling proceedings and appeal by virtue
of Section 31(2) and (3) of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act,
1976 and existence of final and binding civil
court decree declaring said land to be Waqf
property under management of Shia Central
Waqf Board, thereby exempt from operation of
Ceiling Act under Section 6(f) thereof.

Headnotes
U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 - ss. 29, 66,
68 - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 - para
31(2) - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960 - ss. 6(f), 7, 10, 10(2),
13 - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Rules, 1961 - r. 8 - The
undisputed facts of case are that one Raja
Yasin Ali Khan, erstwhile Taluqdar of
Devgaon Estate, had, in the year 1936,
dedicated certain immovable properties
situated in several villages for religious
and charitable purposes, thereby creating
a Waqf in accordance with Muslim law -
Subsequent to his demise, Yawar Hussain
Khan acted as Mutawalli and on 22
November 1959, submitted application for
registration of said Waqf to Shia Central
Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh, whereupon
certificate of registration u/s 29 of U.P.
Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 was issued on 23
March 1973 - Despite the said property
being recorded as Waqf land, proceedings