# Sri Ishwar Maharaj Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Inter College, Agra & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 305
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-03
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 30240 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-ishwar-maharaj-uchchatar-madhyamik-vidyalaya-inter-college-agra-anr-v-state-47681
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

dispute - Rival claim - Order for single
operation was passed by D.I.O.S. - No
reason recorded - Effect - Held, it is
settled proposition of law that even in
administrative
matters,
the
reasons
should be recorded as it is incumbent
upon the authorities to pass a speaking
and reasoned order. (Para 16)
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. Constitution of India - Article 14 & 21 -
Principle
of
natural
justice
-
No
opportunity of hearing was given - Effect
- Held, the D.I.O.S. has passed the
impugned order behind the back of the
petitioners
without
affording
any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
which is clearly in violation of principle of
natural justice, which is the requirement
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 23)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

1 All. C/M Sri Ishwar Maharaj Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Inter College, Agra & Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.
305
stated/disclosed as to the date when the
land in question was encroached upon by
the private respondent and when the wall
was constructed. It is only stated in the
application that the petitioner is living at
Mumbai and in her absence, the neighbour/
private respondent has occupied the land in
question. The details & identification of the
land in question has neither been given in
the writ petition nor in the application filed
before the District Magistrate and the
application as well as the writ petition is
lacking the factual foundation for initiation
of proceedings under the Act of 2007.

36. It is further to be noted that third
party has already created a boundary on
the land in question and, as such, there
prima facie exists a dispute, which is
required to be considered and decided by
the court of competent jurisdiction and
the District Magistrate in exercise of Rule
21, would not have the power to decide
the dispute between petitioner and the
private respondent, who is third party in
respect of title and ownership of the land
in question and the aforesaid would
require the evidence to be led by the
parties before the court of competent
jurisdiction.

37. The petitioner in the present writ
petition has prayed for direction to the
District Magistrate to demolish the illegal
encroachment
over
the
petitioners
adjoining
land
and
handover
the
possession in favour of the petitioner.
While considering the aforesaid prayer, it
was imperative on the part of the
petitioner to have laid the factual
foundation with regard to right, title or
interest of the petitioner in the property in
question, in the writ petition. The
direction as prayed by the petitioner can
only be issued where the petitioner shows
that he has any right, title or interest in
the property in question. In the writ
petition neither any document has been
produced to indicate the right, title or
interest nor the pleadings in this respect
has been provided in the writ petition.

38. In view of the aforesaid, the
present writ petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A305
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 30240 of 2021

C/M
Sri
Ishwar
Maharaj
Uchchatar
Madhyamik Vidyalaya Inter College, Agra
& Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Saurabh Singh, Sri Amit Saxena (Sr.
Advocate), Sri Rohit Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Committee of Management - Election
dispute - Rival claim - Order for single
operation was passed by D.I.O.S. - No
reason recorded - Effect - Held, it is
settled proposition of law that even in
administrative
matters,
the
reasons
should be recorded as it is incumbent
upon the authorities to pass a speaking
and reasoned order. (Para 16)
306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. Constitution of India - Article 14 & 21 -
Principle
of
natural
justice
-
No
opportunity of hearing was given - Effect
- Held, the D.I.O.S. has passed the
impugned order behind the back of the
petitioners
without
affording
any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
which is clearly in violation of principle of
natural justice, which is the requirement
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 23)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Committee of Management, Raja Tej Singh
Vidyalaya
Aurandh,
Mainpuri
Vs
District
Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri; 2000 0 Supreme
(All) 32
2. Committee of Management of Rajendra
Prasad Intermediate College, Bareilly Vs DIOS,
Bareilly & anr.; 1990(1) UPLBEC 189
3. Committee of Management Ramroop Singh
Dhanraj Singh Intermediate College, Fatehpur
Vs DIOS Fatehpur & ors.; 2000 (2) UPLBEC,
(Summary) 54
4. Committee of Management Gandhi Smarak
Inter College, Jainganj, Agra Vs DIOS Agra;
2001(1) UPLBEC 1347
5. Babu Triloki Singh Inter College Vs St. of U.P.
& ors.; 2020(9) ADJ 192
6. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs St. of
U.P. & ors.; AIR 1991 SC 537
7. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs
Consumer Education & Research Centre; (1995)
2 SCC 480
8. Mahesh Chandra Vs Regional Manager, U.P.
Financial Corporation & ors.; AIR 1993 SC 935
9. U.O.I. Vs. M.L. Capoor; AIR 1974 SC 87
10. St. of W.B. Vs Atul Krishna Shaw & anr.,
1991 (Suppl.) 1 SCC 414
11. S.N. Mukherjee Vs U.O.I.; AIR 1990 SC 1984
12. Krishna Swami Vs U.O.I. & ors.; AIR 1993
SC 1407
13. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
Vs L.K. Ratna & ors.; (1986) 4 SCC 537
14. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs
Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & Ors.;
AIR 1983 SC 109
15. Rameshwari Devi Vs St. of Raj. & ors.; AIR
1999 Raj. 47
16. Vasant D. Bhavsar Vs Bar Council of India &
ors.; (1999) 1 SCC 45
17. M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & Anr. Vs
U.O.I. & ors, 2003 AIR SCW 440
18.
Secretary,
Ministry
of
Chemicals
&
Fertilizers, Government of India Vs CIPLA Ltd. &
ors.; (2003) 7 SCC 1
19. U.O.I. & anr. Vs International Trading Co. &
anr.; (2003) 5 SCC 437
20. Raj Kishore Jha Vs St. of Bihar & ors..;
(2003) 11 SCC 519
21. St. of Uttranchal Vs Sunil Kumar Negi; 2008
(4) ALJ 226,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Saxena, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Saurabh Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Shailendra
Singh,
learned
Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner for quashing the
impugned order dated 31.07.2021 passed
by the District Inspector of Schools, Agra
(D.I.O.S.) under Section 5 (1) of the
payment of Salaries Act, 1971 (hereinafter
referred to as "Act 1971), for single
operation of the Account of the College. He
has also prayed for a mandamus directing
the respondents not to interfere in the
peaceful functioning of the petitioner's
institution in accordance with law.
1 All. C/M Sri Ishwar Maharaj Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Inter College, Agra & Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.
307

3. Brief facts of the case is that Sri
Ishwar Maharaj Inter College, Nagla Teja,
Agra
is
a
recognized
and
aided
intermediate institution, which is governed
by the provisions of the Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 and the regulations
framed thereunder. There is an approved
scheme of administration of the institution
wherein the term of the Committee of
Management is four years. The Committee
of Management has constantly being
recognized as the validly constituted
committee and the last undisputed elections
were held on 15.04.2012 and the term of
the committee of management was to
expire on 15.05.2016.

4. Before expiry of the aforesaid term,
a rival claim was setup by one Mr. M.D.
Dwivedi and after several litigations, the
elections of both the rival groups were
discarded by the respondent no.2, i.e.
Regional
Education
Committee,
Agra
Region, Agra, vide order dated 29.12.2016,
wherein a direction was given to hold a
fresh
elections.
However,
after
reconsideration
of
the
matter,
the
respondent no.2 vide its order dated
28.11.2018 upheld the validity of the
elections of the petitioner's committee of
the management, which were held on
17.04.2016. After several litigations, it was
ultimately the elections of petitioners'
committee of management, which was
taken to be valid elections and, therefore,
the petitioners' committee of management
was managing the affairs of the institution.

5. Since the term of petitioners'
committee of management, which was
recognized on 17.04.2016, was to expire on
17.04.2020, hence the proceedings were
initiated for holding of elections on the date
fixed, i.e. 19.04.2020, which was later
postponed to 05.07.2020 due to Covid-19.
The elections were held on 05.07.2020 and
the results were declared on the same date,
wherein the petitioner no.2 was again
elected as Manager of Committee of
management and entire papers pertaining to
the elections were submitted in the office of
respondent
no.3
on
10.07.2020.
Surprisingly, the order dated 02.07.2020
was received by the petitioner, which
records that the elections of petitioners'
committee of management held in the year
2012 and 2016 was found to be valid and
the petitioners' committee was in effective
control of the institution. By the said order,
a direction has been issued to the D.I.O.S.
to hold fresh elections within a period of
three months as the term of the committee
of management has expired on 16.04.2020.
The aforesaid order has been passed in
compliance of the order dated 28.02.2019
passed in Writ -C No. 3551 of 2019,
wherein several directions were issued.
However, the Court had declined to
interfere with the order dated 28.02.2019
vide which the respondent no.2 had upheld
the validity of elections of the petitioners'
committee of management, which were
held
on
17.04.2016.
Thereafter,
the
aforesaid order dated 02.07.2020 was
challenged by the petitioners by means of
Writ C No.15879 of 2020, wherein vide
order dated 12.10.2020, the Court had
passed the following order:-

"Heard
Shri
Amit
Saxena,
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner.

Challenge in the writ petition is
to an order dated 22.07.2020 passed by the
respondent No. 2, Regional Committee,
Agra, Region Agra, which was seized of the
matter pursuant to order of remand passed
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the High Court on 28.02.2019, requiring
two issues, pertaining to the election of the
petitioners Committee of Management held
in the year 2016 which issues had not been
dealt with while upholding the elections.

The operative portion of the
impugned order directs a fresh election to
be held while upholding petitioners election
of 2016.

It is contended that the election of
the 2016 were held on 17.04.2016. The
term of Committee of Management was 4
years. Therefore fresh election was notified
for 19.04.2020 but could not have been
held on account of the lockdown.

It
is
contended
that
an
advertisement was actually published that
the elections were to be held on 05.07.2020
but while passing the impugned order, this
aspect has not been adverted to. In any
case, the elections have been duly held and
the papers have been forwarded for
necessary action. Under the circumstances,
the direction for holding fresh elections is
unjustified.

It has also been stated that the no
election scheduled has been notified till
date.

Matter requires consideration.

Learned Standing Counsel may
file a counter affidavit within three weeks.

Counsel for the petitioner will
have one week thereafter to file a rejoinder
affidavit.

List this petition for admission/
final hearing immediately after 4 weeks.

Until further orders, directions
contained in the impugned order for
holding fresh elections to the Committee of
Management, shall remain stayed."

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order
dated 12.10.2020, since holding of fresh
elections in the institution were stayed, the
petitioners' committee of management as
validly elected on 17.04.2016, is still
managing the affairs of the institution.

7. Surprisingly, the respondent no.3,
i.e. the D.I.O.S., Agra has passed the
impugned order dated 31.07.2021, whereby
he has directed the single operation of
accounts of the petitioners' institution.

8. Mr. Amit Saxena, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Saurabh Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the
order passed by the District Inspector of
School, Agra dated 31.07.2021 directing
single operation of bank accounts of the
petitioners' institution is in violation of
principal of natural justice, as there is no
whisper as on which date the petitioner has
been afforded opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. In support of the aforesaid
submission, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has placed reliance upon a
judgment of this Court in the case of
Committee of Management, Raja Tej
Singh Vidyalaya Aurandh, MainpuriAppellant
Vs.
District
Inspector
of
Schools, Mainpuri-Respondents reported
in 2000 0 Supreme (All) 32, wherein it has
been held as follows:

"29.......no
order
for
single
operation of accounts can be passed
without reasonable opportunity to the
Committee of Management......"

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that the impugned order
dated 31.07.2021 is without jurisdiction
and not sustainable in the eye of law as
Section 5 of the Act, 1971, provides that
the D.I.O.S. is empowered to pass an order
for single operation, if there is any
difficulty in disbursement of the salary to
the teaching and non-teaching staff of the
institution. Neither any such complaint is
1 All. C/M Sri Ishwar Maharaj Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Inter College, Agra & Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.
309
there before the D.I.O.S. in this regard nor
any reason has been indicated in the
impugned order, showing any difficulty in
disbursement of salary of staff of the
institution.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgments of this Court reported in
1990(1) UPLBEC, page 189; Committee
of Management of Rajendra Prasad
Intermediate College, Bareilly Vs. DIOS,
Bareilly
and
another,
2000
(2)
UPLBEC, (Summary) 54; Committee of
Management Ramroop Singh Dhanraj
Singh Intermediate College, Fatehpur
Vs. DIOS Fatehpur and others, 2001(1)
UPLBEC, Page 1347; Committee of
Management
Gandhi
Smarak
Inter
College, Jainganj, Agra Vs. DIOS Agra
and 2020(9) ADJ 192; Babu Triloki
Singh Inter College vs. State of U.P. and
Ors., wherein it has been held that an
order of single operation of accounts
could be passed by the D.I.O.S. under
Section 5(1) of the Act, 1971, where the
difficulty has arisen in disbursement of
salary of the staff of the institution due to
any default of the Management. The
order for single operation of accounts
could not be passed without providing
opportunity of hearing to the Committee
of Management.

11. Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned
Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact
that the impugned order dated 31.07.2021
has
been
passed
without
affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

12. Counsel for the parties agree that
the writ petition may be disposed of finally
at this stage without calling for a counter
affidavit specifically in view of the order
proposed to be passed today.

13. In order to appreciate the
contentions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to
the relevant provisions of Section 5(1) of the
Payment of Salaries Act, 1971, which is
reproduced below: -

"5. Procedure for payment of
salary in the case of certain institutions. -

(1) The management of every
institution
shall,
for
the
purpose
of
disbursement of salaries to its teachers and
employees, open [in a Scheduled Bank or a
Cooperative Bank] a separate account to be
opened jointly by a representative of the
management and by the Inspector or such
other officer as may be authorised in that
behalf :

Provided that after the account is
opened, the Inspector may, if he is, subject to
any rules made under this Act, satisfied that it
is expedient in the public interest so to do,
instruct the bank that the account shall be
operated by the representative as the
management alone, and may at any time
revoke such instruction :

Provided further that in the case
referred to in the provision to subsection (2),
or
where
a
difficulty
arises
in
the
disbursement of salaries due to any default of
the management, the Inspector may instruct
the Bank that the account shall be operated
only by himself or by such other officer as
may be authorised by him in that behalf and
may at any time revoke such instruction."

14. As per the requirement of the
above Section 5(1) of the Act 1971, an
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order of single operation of the accounts
could be passed by the D.I.O.S. where the
difficulty has arisen in disbursement of
salary of the staff of the institution due to
any default of the management.

15. From bare reading of the impugned
order dated 31.07.2021, it is apparently clear
that the petitioners have not been afforded
any opportunity of hearing before passing the
impugned order, as there is no whisper in
order, as to on which date the petitioners have
been called upon to set up his case with
regard to any complaint made against him.
Perusal of the impugned order dated
31.07.2021 goes to show that the D.I.O.S. has
not mentioned that the petitioners' committee
of management has defaulted in making
payment to the staff (teaching or nonteaching) and there is no complaint to that
effect also.

16. So far as the second submission
made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is concerned, this Court may
record that it is settled proposition of law
that even in administrative matters, the
reasons should be recorded as it is
incumbent upon the authorities to pass a
speaking and reasoned order. In Kumari
Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 537,
the Apex Court has observed as under:-

"Every such action may be
informed by reason and if follows that an
act un-informed by reason is arbitrary, the
rule of law contemplates governance by
law and not by humour, whim or caprice of
the men to whom the governance is
entrusted for the time being. It is the trite
law that "be you ever so high, the laws are
above you." This is what a man in power
must remember always."

17. In Life Insurance Corporation of
India Vs. Consumer Education and
Research Centre, reported in (1995) 2
SCC 480, the Apex Court observed that the
State or its instrumentality must not take
any irrelevant or irrational factor into
consideration or appear arbitrary in its
decision. "Duty to act fairly" is part of fair
procedure envisaged under Articles 14 and
21. Every activity of the public authority or
those under public duty must be received
and guided by the public interest. Same
view has been reiterated by the Apex Court
in
Mahesh
Chandra
Vs.
Regional
Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation &
Ors., reported in AIR 1993 SC 935; and
Union of India Versus M.L. Capoor,
reported in AIR 1974 SC 87.

18. In State of West Bengal Vs. Atul
Krishna Shaw & Anr., 1991 reported in
(Suppl.) 1 SCC 414, the Apex Court
observed that "giving of reasons is an
essential element of administration of
justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an
indispensable part of sound system of
judicial review."

19. In S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union
of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984,
it has been held
that
the object
underlying the rules of natural justice is
to prevent mis-carriage of justice and
secure fair play in action. The expanding
horizon of the principles of natural
justice provides for requirement to
record reasons as it is now regarded as
one of the principles of natural justice,
and it was held in the above case that
except in cases where the requirement to
record reasons is expressly or by
necessary implication dispensed with,
the authority must record reasons for its
decision.
1 All. C/M Sri Ishwar Maharaj Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Inter College, Agra & Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.
311

20. In Krishna Swami Vs. Union of
India & Ors., reported in AIR 1993 SC
1407, the Apex Court observed that the rule
of law requires that any action or decision
of a statutory or public authority must be
founded on the reason stated in the order or
borne-out from the record. The Court
further observed that "reasons are the links
between the material, the foundation for
these erection and the actual conclusions.
They would also administer how the mind
of the maker was activated and actuated
and there rational nexus and syntheses with
the facts considered and the conclusion
reached. Lest it may not be arbitrary,
unfair and unjust, violate Article 14 or
unfair procedure offending Article 21."

21. Similar view has been taken by
the Apex Court in Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna &
Ors., (1986) 4 SCC 537; Board of
Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs.
Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni
&
Ors.,
AIR
1983
SC
109.
In
Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors., AIR 1999 Raj. 47. In Vasant D.
Bhavsar Vs. Bar Council of India & Ors.,
(1999) 1 SCC 45, the Apex Court held that
an authority must pass a speaking and
reasoned order indicating the material on
which its conclusions are based. Similar
view has been reiterated in M/s. Indian
Charge Chrome Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of
India & Ors, 2003 AIR SCW 440;
Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals &
Fertilizers, Government of India Vs.
CIPLA Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 1; and
Union of India & Anr. Vs. International
Trading Co. & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 437.

22. The Apex Court in the case of
in Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar
and Ors. Reported in (2003) 11 SCC
519 and in the case of State of
Uttranchal Vs. Sunil Kumar Negi
reported in 2008 (4) ALJ. 226, has held
that reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion and without the same, it
becomes lifeless.

23. So far as the first submission
made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is concerned, this Court may
record that the D.I.O.S. has passed the
impugned order behind the back of the
petitioners
without
affording
any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
which is clearly in violation of principle
of
natural
justice,
which
is
the
requirement of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.

24. The D.I.O.S. has failed to
consider that the petitioners' committee of
management is still functioning and
managing the affairs of the institution in
the light of orders of this Court.

25. In view of the above, the order
dated 31.07.2021 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools, Agra being contrary
to the provision of Section 5 (1) of the Act
1971
and
without
providing
any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, is
arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be set
aside.

26. Accordingly, the present writ
petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 31.07.2021 passed by the D.I.O.S.,
Agra is hereby quashed.

27. No order as to cost.
----------
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)01ILR A312
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2021 &
23.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 61005 of 2017

Dhan Pal Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vivek Saran

A. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Plots
and
Housing
Regulations
and
Allotment Rules, 1979 - Allotment of
shop/plot to the displaced person -
Rates chargeable on it, whether it
should be the rate which was given to
the
farmers
at
the
time
of
the
acquisition or the current market rate
- Held, the contention that the demand
of the Parishad for current rates is
unjustified cannot be sustained. The
petitioners
are
liable
to
pay
the
current rates as applicable towards the
allotment of the plots in their favour -
Raghuvir Singh's case is followed.
(Para 3 and 9)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 487 of 2018;
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & ors. Vs
Raghuvir Singh (D) through L.R.s & ors. decided
on 11.01.2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Vivek Saran, learned counsel, who has put
in appearance on behalf of contesting
Respondents No.2, 3 & 4 and learned
Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1.

2. The pleadings between the
contesting parties have been exchanged and
with the consent of the parties, we proceed
to decide the writ petition on merits at the
admission stage itself.

3. The writ petitioners claim that they
are
"Displaced
Persons"
within
the
meaning of displaced persons under the
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Plots and
Housing Regulations and Allotment Rules,
1979. Their entire land was acquired by the
Parishad for their Vasundhara Scheme. The
award in respect of the acquisition was
made on 27.02.1989. It is submitted that
the Parishad under the 1979 Regulations
has decided to allot plots as well as shops
to the displaced persons provided such
displaced persons apply and get themselves
registered by depositing a sum of Rs.5000/-
in between 01.09.1999 and 30.09.1999.
There is no dispute about the petitioners
getting themselves registered by depositing
the
requisite
amounts.
The
Parishad
proceeded to allot the shops to the
petitioners which were not acceptable to
the petitioners. The Parishad consequent to
a meeting held on 08.10.2012 resolved to
allot commercial plot measuring 25 sq.
meter to 50 sq. meter to the displaced
persons. The grievance of the petitioners,
as is borne out from the averments made in
the writ petition, is with regard to the rate
of the land/plot being charged by the
Parishad. According to the petitioners, the
rate should be the rate which was given to
the farmers at the time of the acquisition,
while the Parishad is insisting on current