# Sri Krishna Rai and others v. Banaras Hindu University Thru' Registrar B.H.U. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 940
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-08-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33458 of 2010
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-krishna-rai-and-others-v-banaras-hindu-university-thru-registrar-b-h-u-and-42018
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

employees appointed in 1994 were
wrongly offered CPF Scheme and thus
they were all brought into GPF Scheme
for rectifying the error. The IITs were
instructed by UGC/ MHRD not to extend
cut of date since they are not funded by
the U.G.C. Any decision taken by them
will not amount to discrimination with
the teachers/ employees of the Central
Universities.
The
Delhi
University
continued with an illegality, against the
clarifications issued by the UGC and
Ministry
of
Human
Resource
Development.

21. In Union of India Vs. M.K.
Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 the Supreme
Court held where an employee governed
by CPF Scheme did not opt for pension
scheme, despite several chances given to
him, his representation 22 years after his
retirement, with willingness to refund the
amount cannot be permitted to switch
over to pension scheme. If his request is
accepted, the effect would be to permit
him to secure double benefit. There was
no recurring or continuing cause of
action to file writ petition after such a
long time. If was further held that when
he had notice or knowledge of the
availability of option he could not be
heard to contend that he did not have
written intimation of option.

22. We also find that this writ
petition
was
filed
on
5.8.2004
challenging the decision of the Executive
Council of the University dated 19/20th
July,
2002,
communicated
by
the
Registrar of the University on 5.9.2002,
and much after the new pension scheme
had become applicable to all the
employees joining Central Government
after 1.1.2004. The employees, who were
covered
by
GPF-Gratuity-Pension
Scheme were given offer to switch over
to new pension scheme and thus in the
year 2004 there was absolutely no
justification for the petitioners, many of
whom have retired long ago to be offered
an opportunity to change their option and
to switch back to GPF-Gratuity-Pension
Scheme.

23. Both the writ petitions are
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33458 of 2010

Hargen

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.P. Dubey
Sri A.N. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Brahma Deo Mishra
C.S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act ,
1973-Sect6ion-49-Basis of lease 1939objection that land being Banjar Land
can not be adjudicated by Consolidation
Authorities held misconceived-nature of
right claimed on basis of long entrycould be decided by the consolidation
Court-view taken by Board of Revenueheld-proper.

Held: Para 4

The contention of the petitioner is that
since the land is recorded as Banjar, and
therefore the consolidation authorities
would not have jurisdiction to proceed
2 All] Sri Krishna Rai and others V. Banaras Hindu University Thru' Registrar B.H.U. and others

941
with the matter, cannot be accepted for
the simple reason that the objection to
be entertained by the consolidation
authorities is to be based on the nature
of the rights claimed and not on the
nature
of
the
recorded
entry.
The
argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner therefore is unsustainable.
Case law discussed:
1983 (2) RD 153; 1983 RD 299

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P.Sahi,J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Sri R.P. Dubey.

2. Sri Dubey submits that the issue
relating to the bar of Section 49 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, could
not have been taken into consideration by
the Board of Revenue and that even
otherwise the petitioner has perfected his
title by virtue of his long standing
possession since 1939 on the basis of a
lease. He contends that the bar of Section 49
would not operate as the consolidation
authorities have no right to adjudicate any
controversy relating to land recorded as
Banjar and for that he relies on two
decisions of this court in the case of
Ramphal & others Vs. Champat Singh &
others, 1983 (2) RD 153 and the decision in
the case of Bhillar & others Vs. Dy.
Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur &
others, 1983 RD 299.

3. Having heard Sri Dubey learned
counsel for the petitioner what transpires
from the facts on record is that the petitioner
is claiming his tenancy rights on the basis of
an alleged lease of 1939. The claim,
therefore, is founded on long standing
possession of a lease. This is a claim which
squarely falls for adjudication of such rights
within the provisions of the U.P. C.H. Act,
1953, namely, Section 4 read with Section 5
and Section 9 (A-2) thereof.

4. The contention of the petitioner is
that since the land is recorded as Banjar,
and therefore the consolidation authorities
would not have jurisdiction to proceed with
the matter, cannot be accepted for the
simple reason that the objection to be
entertained by the consolidation authorities
is to be based on the nature of the rights
claimed and not on the nature of the
recorded entry. The argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner therefore is
unsustainable.

5. In the opinion of the court, the bar
of Section 49 would squarely apply in the
instant case and the findings recorded by the
Board of Revenue cannot be interfered with.
The decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner therefore would
not be applicable as explained above.

6. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 37741 of 2007

Sri Krishna Rai and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Banaras Hindu University Thru' Registrar
B.H.U. and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Mehta'
Sri Vijay Shanker

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pankaj Naqvi
Sri Arun Prakash