# Smt. Prabha Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 289
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 18526 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-prabha-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48031
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

law
-
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 11 -
Acquisition for the purpose of construction
of a Railway over-bridge, a public purpose
- Principle, required to be kept in mind,
while exercising the discretionary power
by the Court, laid down - Held, once a
project of public importance, which is
good in larger public interest, is being
executed and has been completed about
45%, setting aside of acquisition in a
petition filed by one of the land owners
owning a small portion of the land, will
not be in larger public interest - Projects
of public importance should not be halted
as the same would be against the larger
public interest and the constitutional
courts should weigh public interest vis-àvis private interest, while exercising its
discretion. (Para 8 and 10)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

1 All. Smt. Prabha Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
289
application, in paragraph no.10 thereof the
submission is that, in case the exparte
award is not recalled and the respondent is
not given adequate opportunity to present
its case, then the loss being suffered by the
respondent cannot be saved and in future
also loss would be caused, and it will be
deprived of bringing the full and correct
facts before the court because there was no
relationship of master and servant between
the
respondent
and
the
petitioner.
Therefore,
apart
from
this
vague
submission, which merely gives a hint of
the case on merit, and which is wholly
unsubstantiated, there is no other averment
in that application nor was there any
evidence before the Presiding Officer of the
Labour Court to have proceeded to recall
the exparte award. Therefore, under the
circumstances,
allowing
the
recall
application cannot be said to be a judicious
exercise of discretion by the Labour Court.

19. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned order dated 29.1.2016, passed by
the Prescribed Authority setting aside the
exparte award is hereby quashed and the
writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A289
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ C No. 18526 of 2021

Smt. Prabha Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Udayan Nandan, Sri Shashi Nandan
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra

A.
Acquisition
law
-
Right
to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 11 -
Acquisition for the purpose of construction
of a Railway over-bridge, a public purpose
- Principle, required to be kept in mind,
while exercising the discretionary power
by the Court, laid down - Held, once a
project of public importance, which is
good in larger public interest, is being
executed and has been completed about
45%, setting aside of acquisition in a
petition filed by one of the land owners
owning a small portion of the land, will
not be in larger public interest - Projects
of public importance should not be halted
as the same would be against the larger
public interest and the constitutional
courts should weigh public interest vis-àvis private interest, while exercising its
discretion. (Para 8 and 10)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Kamal Trading Pvt.Ltd.Vs St. of W.B. & ors.;
(2012) 2 SCC 25
2. Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. &
ors. Vs St. of Har.& ors.; (2013) 4 SCC 210
3. Nareshbhai Bhagubhai & ors. Vs U.O.I. &
ors.; (2019) 15 SCC 1
4. Ramniklal N. Bhutta & anr.Vs St. of Mah. &
ors.; AIR 1997 SC 1236
5. Pratibha Nema & ors. Vs St. of M.P. & ors.;
AIR 2003 SC 3140
6. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.Vs Alok
Kotahwala & ors.; AIR 2013 CC 754.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. The petitioner has filed the present
writ petition praying for quashing of
notification dated April 06, 2021 issued
under Section 11 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013
(hereinafter
referred to as "2013 Act"), as published in
newspaper
on
April
24,
2021
and
notification dated July 16, 2021 issued
under Section 19 of the 2013 Act.

2. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
owner and in possession of plot no. 293
measuring 0.0688 hectare. The same is
being utilized for agricultural purposes.
However, off late, she intended to construct
a house for residential purposes, for which
pillars have been raised as foundation. For
the purpose of acquisition of aforesaid land,
notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act
was issued on April 06, 2021. The land was
sought to be acquired for the purpose of
construction of a Railway over-bridge. The
total area sought to be acquired was 0.5344
hectare. The petitioner filed objections to
the aforesaid acquisition on May 26, 2021.
However, without affording opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and also violating
the mandate of Section 19(2) of the 2013
Act, notification under Section 19 was
issued. Section 15 of the 2013 Act clearly
provides that in case any objection is filed
to the proposed acquisition of land, the
aggrieved parties have to be afforded
opportunity of personal hearing. Section
19(2) of the 2013 Act provides that
rehabilitation scheme has to be published
for the persons, who may be displaced.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner referred to notification issued
under Section 19 of 2013 Act, which
mentions that as per the survey carried out,
none of the land owner is required to be
rehabilitated, whereas the case set up by the
petitioner was that number of families will
be displaced, hence, rehabilitation scheme
was required. The petitioner has family of
five persons. Unless the rehabilitation
scheme is published, final notification
under Section 19 of the 2013 Act for
acquisition of the land could not be issued.

4. Further argument raised is that the
Collector is not final authority to dispose of
the objection. He has to merely send his
report to the appropriate Government to
take a final decision thereon. However, in
the present case, the objections have been
decided by Collector himself with no
application
of
mind
by
appropriate
Government. Right of hearing under pari
materia provision, i.e., Section 5-A of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as "1894 Act") has been held to
be fundamental right, hence, for violation
thereof,
the
acquisition
proceedings
deserves to be quashed. In support of his
argument, reliance is placed on Kamal
Trading Private Limited Vs. State of
West Bengal and others (2012) 2 SCC 25,
Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms
Private Limited and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others (2013) 4 SCC 210
and Nareshbhai Bhagubhai and others
Vs. Union of India and others (2019) 15
SCC 1.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for the State submitted that the
acquisition is for a total area of 0.5344
hectare of land. As per survey carried out,
minimum possible land was acquired for
construction of railway over-bridge, which
is required to take care of traffic problem
on the spot. It is to facilitate the people of
the area and is in larger public interest. As
should
be
the
normal
attitude,
the
1 All. Smt. Prabha Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
291
development activities are not opposed by
the inhabitants of the area when they are
appropriately compensated. This happened
in the present case also as none of the other
owners objected to the acquisition. It is
only the petitioner, who raised objection
and the same was considered and with the
opinion of the Collector, the entire record
was sent to the Government, which finally
issued the notification. It shows that there
was proper application of mind by the
appropriate Government before issuance of
the notification under Section 19 of the
2013 Act.

6. He further submitted that it is admitted
case of the petitioner herself that the plot in
question, which is a small portion of the total
land acquired, was merely being used for
agricultural purposes. It is proposed to be used
for residential purposes. However, there was
no house existing thereon. Thus, it is not a case
where petitioner or her family members are
required to be rehabilitated as they already
have a residence. Merely on account of some
small discrepancy, if any, in the process of
acquisition, where the same is not opposed to
by 90% of the land owners, the acquisition
proceedings should not be quashed as the
entire project, which is being executed in large
public interest, will be put to a halt. He further
submitted that award of entire land was
announced by the Collector on September 13,
2021 except the land of the petitioner, as there
was interim stay granted by this Court. The
total cost of the project is about ₹ 38 crore.
The project is expected to be completed in
March, 2022. About 45% work has already
been executed. Any interference by this Court
at this stage in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner will put the project on hold as a
result whereof the entire amount spent on the
project will go waste and it will be delayed
unnecessarily. It is not the stage where even
the alignment can be changed as the land
on the site, except small portion for which
petitioner has raised dispute, already stands
acquired. The over-bridge is connected on
both sides with road. Land of the petitioner
was also lying vacant except that she claims
that certain pillars of foundation had been
raised for construction of a house. But the fact
is that no one was residing there. The prayer is
for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing for
respondents no. 2 and 4 submitted that
the construction of over-bridge has
already started. The pillars on the
Karchhana side have already been erected
upto the required height till the railway
line. However, the side on which the land
of the petitioner is located, pillars are yet
to be raised.

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has time
and again opined that projects of public
importance should not be halted as the same
would be against the larger public interest
and the constitutional courts should weigh
public interest vis-à-vis private interest, while
exercising its discretion. The view could very
well be gathered from the judgments of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramniklal N.
Bhutta
and
another
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra and others, reported as AIR
1997 SC 1236, Pratibha Nema and others
Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported as
AIR 2003 SC 3140. The same view has been
expressed by Rajasthan High Court's in
Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited
Vs. Alok Kotahwala and others, reported as
AIR 2013 CC 754. Relevant extracts from
the aforesaid judgments are reproduced
hereunder:

i) Ramniklal N. Bhutta's case:
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"10. Before parting with this case,
we think it necessary to make a few
observations relevant to land acquisition
proceedings. Our country is now launched
upon an ambitious programme of all round
economic advancement to make our
economy competitive in the world market.
We are anxious to attract foreign direct
investment to the maximum extent. We
propose
to
compete
with
China
economically. We wish to attain the pace of
progress achieved by some of the Asian
countries, referred to as "Asian tigers", e.g.,
South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. It is,
however, recognised on all hands that the
infrastructure necessary for sustaining such
a pace of progress is woefully lacking in
our country. The means of transportation,
power and communications are in dire need
of substantial improvement, expansion and
modernisation. These things very often call
for acquisition of land and that too without
any delay. It is, however, natural that in
most of these cases, the persons affected
challenge the acquisition proceedings in
Courts. These challenges are generally in
the shape of writ petitions filed in High
Courts. Invariably, stay of acquisition is
asked for and in some cases, orders by way
of stay or injunction are also made.
Whatever may have been the practices in
the past, a time has come where the Courts
should keep the larger public interest in
mind while exercising their power of
granting stay/injunction. The power under
Article 226 is discretionary. It will be
exercised only in furtherance of interests of
justice and not merely on the making out of
a legal point. And in the matter of land
acquisition
for
public
purposes,
the
interests of justice and the public interest
coalesce. They are very often one and the
same. Even in a Civil Suit, granting of
injunction or other similar orders, more
particularly of an interlocutory nature, is
equally discretionary. The courts have to
weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the
private interest while exercising the power
under Article 226 - indeed any of their
discretionary powers. It may even be open
to the High Court to direct, in case it finds
finally that the acquisition was vitiated on
account of non-compliance with some legal
requirement that the persons interested
shall also be entitled to a particular amount
of damages to be awarded as a lump sum or
calculated at a certain percentage of
compensation payable. There are many
ways of affording appropriate relief and
redressing
a
wrong;
quashing
the
acquisition proceeding is not the only mode
of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter
of balancing the competing interests.
Beyond this, it is neither possible nor
advisable to say. We hope and trust that
these considerations will be duly borne in
mind by the Courts while dealing with
challenges to acquisition proceedings."
(sic) (emphasis supplied)

ii) Pratibha Nema's case:

"38. When no prejudice has been
demonstrated nor could be reasonably
inferred,
it
would
be
unjust
and
inappropriate
to
strike
down
the
Notification under Section 4(1) on the basis
of a nebulous plea, in exercise of writ
jurisdiction
under
Article
226.
Even
assuming that there is some ambiguity in
particularizing the public purpose and the
possibility of doubt cannot be ruled out, the
constitutional
Courts
in
exercise
of
jurisdiction under Article 226 or 136
should not, as a matter of course, deal a
lethal blow to the entire proceedings based
on the theoretical or hypothetical grievance
of the petitioner. It would be sound
exercise of discretion to intervene when a
real and substantial grievance is made out,
the non-redressal of which would cause
prejudice and injustice to the aggrieved
1 All. Smt. Prabha Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
293
party. Vagueness of the public purpose,
especially, in a matter like this where it is
possible to take two views, is not
something which affects the jurisdiction
and it would, therefore, be proper to bear in
mind the considerations of prejudice and
injustice."

iii)
Jaipur
Metro
Rail
Corporation Limited's case:

"31. With respect to ecological
balance, there has to be sustainable
development and such projects of immense
public importance cannot he halted. It is
not the case that requisite permissions from
the Central Government and the State
Government have not been obtained, thus,
objections were flimsy. In other petitions
also pertaining to the same Project, this
Court has held that such project of
immense public importance should not be
put to halt. Thus, flimsy and untenable
objections were raised, which have been
rightly rejected after due application of
mind.

x x x x

48. On merits, we find the order of
interim stay passed by the single Bench to be
untenable, thus, we have no hesitation in
setting aside the same. Suffice it to observe
that in such cases of public importance of
Metro Rail Project, there should not be any
interim stay, rather an effort should be made
to decide the matter finally at an early date.
Staying the land acquisition proceedings is
not appropriate and would be against the
larger public interest involved in such
projects. Thus, relying upon the decision in
the case of Ramniklal N. Bhutta (supra), we
hold that in the matter of immense public
importance like the present one, the power to
grant interim stay under Article 226 of the
Constitution should not be exercised in the
normal course."

9. In the case in hand, respondents'
stand is that 45 per cent work of railway
over-bridge is already complete. On one
side pillars have been erected whereas on
the other side, where the land of the
petitioner is situated, the same are yet to be
erected. She otherwise owns small portion,
i.e., about 10 % of the total acquired land,
which at present, is lying vacant, though it
is claimed that the petitioner sought to
construct a house thereon for residential
purposes. From the photographs placed on
record it is evident that there exist certain
pillars, that too only upto ground level.

10. Once a project of public
importance, which is good in larger public
interest, is being executed and has been
completed about 45%, setting aside of
acquisition in a petition filed by one of the
land owners owning a small portion of the
land, will not be in larger public interest. It
is not the stage where alignment of overbridge can be changed which otherwise
could not have been possible as the railway
over-bridge will be connecting the existing
roads on both the sides. Private interest has
to give way to the larger public interest.
Even if there are some small discrepancies
in the process of acquisition, in our opinion
in the facts of the present case, the
acquisition does not deserve to be set aside
as otherwise the project will be delayed
which will cause loss to the State besides
suffering to the residents of the area, who
may be deprived of using the railway overbridge on account of delayed completion of
the project. In any case, the petitioner will
be duly compensated for the land owned by
her.

11. For the reasons mentioned above,
we do not find any merit in the present
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition.
The
same
is,
accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A294
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 26608 of 2021

Bipraji Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pramod Kumar Singh Paliwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
A. Civil Law - The Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 - Sections 21, 22 & 23 - UP
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Rules, 2014 - Rule 21 -
Protection of property of Senior Citizens,
its extent - Title dispute - Jurisdiction of
Maintenance
Tribunal
-
Held,
the
proceedings before the District Magistrate
are summary in nature and only limited
inquiry can be made by the District
Magistrate for the purpose of carrying out
the object of Rule 21 - The "protection" of
property must therefore be understood to
mean where a senior citizen retains a
property in his name or possession for his
welfare and well being - In the Act of
2007, no power have been prescribed of
any
adjudicatory
mechanism
being
conferred on the District Magistrate for
deciding the disputed question of title,
right and interest in the property. (Para 25
and 26)
B.
Pleading
-
Significance
-
Vague
pleading, it's effect - Missing in the
factual foundation for the cause of action,
how far effect the relief sought - Held, the
pleadings are the foundation of litigation.
In pleadings, the necessary and relevant
particulars and material must be included
and unnecessary and irrelevant material
must be excluded - Pleadings in a
particular case are the factual foundation
on which the case of the litigant is based
on. The pleadings should be specific in the
petition and should disclose the complete
cause of action for approaching the court.
If the factual foundation for the cause of
action in approaching the court is missing
or is vague then it is always open for the
court
to
deny
the
relief
to
the
petitioner/litigant
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the particular case. (Para
33)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D Chauhan, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner seeking direction to
the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to
demolish the illegal encroachment made
over the petitioner's adjoining land and
hand over the possession in favour of the
petitioner.

2. The petitioner claims to be a widow
lady having no source of protection of life
and liberty and, as such, has moved an
application
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, to the District
Magistrate, Azamgarh, to take action in
respect of the land of the petitioner and to
evict the private respondent no.5 from the
land in question. The application filed by
the
petitioner
before
the
District
Magistrate, Azamgarh is filed by the
petitioner as Annexure 1 to the writ
petition. A bare perusal of the abovementioned application of the petitioner
before the District Magistrate would