# Sri Ravi Narain Malviya and others v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 337
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-03-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9400 of 1997
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-ravi-narain-malviya-and-others-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-40355
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Mandamus-
Land
acquisitioncompensation
award
in
favour
of
petitioners/tenure
holders/ownersPayment of compensation illegally to
society, which played fraud and mis
representation-only
for
recoveryinordinate
delay
in
filing
F.I.R.-
Directions
issued
to
initiate
departmental
inquiry
against
erring
officers-Directions also to D.M. to ensure
adequate
action
under
societies
Registration Act- apart from criminal
proceedings on basis of F.I.R. lodged
against officers of society who played
fraud- To ensure recovery of embezzled
amount-D.M. and S.S.P. directed to take
coercive measures including arrest.

Held- Para 21

In the above state of affairs, we deem it
appropriate
to
direct
the
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad,
and
Chief
Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
to take requisite steps and initiate
departmental enquiry forthwith against
concerned
erring
officers
and,
if
necessary,
suspend
the
delinquent
officer's whose integrity is doubtful. An
officer who indulges in and colludes with
others to misappropriate money by
playing fraud, does not deserve to be in
the office even for a moment. The
District Magistrate shall also ensure
adequate
action
under
Societies
Registration Act in accordance with law,
apart from criminal proceedings on the
basis of the F.I.R. lodged against the
officers
of
the
Society
who
are
responsible in playing fraud. In order to
ensure
recovery
of
the
embezzled
amount,
the
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad and the S.S.P., Allahabad shall
take all steps including arrest, etc. and
other coercive measures against Jai
Prakash Ojha, the then Secretary of the
Society forthwith.

## Text

1 All] Sri Ravi Narain Malviya and others V. The State of U.P. and others 337
obviously in collusion with some Judicial
Officers.
As
a
result
exorbitant
compensation is being awarded by the
Reference Courts under Section 18, and
this is usually done in collusion between
certain unscrupulous lawyers and certain
dishonest Judicial Officers, and this is
bringing disgrace to the entire judiciary in
the State of U.P.

6. We directed that the aforesaid
judgments and other similar judgments be
placed
before
the
Administrative
Committee
of
the
High
Court.
Accordingly, the matter was placed before
the Administrative Committee in its
meeting
on
12.3.2004
and
the
Administrative Committee constituted a
Committee under the Chairmanship of
Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan with
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan as
member to probe into this scandalous
practice which is going in the District
Courts of Western U.P.

7. Let a copy of this judgment be
placed before Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S.
Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok
Bhushan for considering the appropriate
action against the concerned Judicial
Officers in these matters. Serious and
strong action must be taken against those
involved in this nefarious practice which
is giving a bad to the entire judiciary of
Uttar Pradesh.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 5.3.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9400 of 1997

Sri Ravi Narain Malviya and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.K. Goyal
Sri A. Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anil Tiwari
Sri Vishnu Pratap
Sri A.K. Mishra
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Mandamus-
Land
acquisitioncompensation
award
in
favour
of
petitioners/tenure
holders/ownersPayment of compensation illegally to
society, which played fraud and mis
representation-only
for
recoveryinordinate
delay
in
filing
F.I.R.-
Directions
issued
to
initiate
departmental
inquiry
against
erring
officers-Directions also to D.M. to ensure
adequate
action
under
societies
Registration Act- apart from criminal
proceedings on basis of F.I.R. lodged
against officers of society who played
fraud- To ensure recovery of embezzled
amount-D.M. and S.S.P. directed to take
coercive measures including arrest.

Held- Para 21

In the above state of affairs, we deem it
appropriate
to
direct
the
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad,
and
Chief
Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
to take requisite steps and initiate
departmental enquiry forthwith against
concerned
erring
officers
and,
if
necessary,
suspend
the
delinquent
officer's whose integrity is doubtful. An
officer who indulges in and colludes with
others to misappropriate money by
playing fraud, does not deserve to be in
the office even for a moment. The
District Magistrate shall also ensure
adequate
action
under
Societies
Registration Act in accordance with law,
apart from criminal proceedings on the
basis of the F.I.R. lodged against the
officers
of
the
Society
who
are
responsible in playing fraud. In order to
ensure
recovery
of
the
embezzled
amount,
the
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad and the S.S.P., Allahabad shall
take all steps including arrest, etc. and
other coercive measures against Jai
Prakash Ojha, the then Secretary of the
Society forthwith.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. Heard learned counsels for the
parties. Perused the record of the case.

2. Facts of the case, required for the
adjudication of the issues raised in this
petition are not in dispute and briefly
stated as follows -

3. The petitioner are admittedly
recorded tenure holders/owners of Khasra
plot no. 790 situate in Mauza Puresurdas,
Pargana
Jhunsi,
district
Allahabad
measuring 7752 sq. yards (2 Bighas 17
Biswas). Petitioners entered into an
agreement to sell the land in question on
May 18, 1983 with Prayag Upniveshan
Avas Evam Nirman Sahkari Samiti
Limited, Balrampur-House, Allahabad,
for short called 'the society'. It is also not
in dispute that sale deed, on the basis of
said agreement was not executed, and the
said deed was impounded under Indian
Stamp Act, the Society failed to get the
sale deed executed and the petitioners
finally gave notice dated March 4, 1991,
revoked the agreement to sell in favour of
the Society.

4. In para 6 of the writ petition it is
stated that petitioners continued to be
recorded as owners of the land in question
and this averment has not been disputed
vide para 5 of the counter affidavit (sworn
by Gyan Prakash Srivastava filed on
behalf of the contesting respondents).

5.

State
Government
issued
notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Land
Acquisition
Act
which
was
published in daily newspaper dated
8.6.1990 and 26.6.1990 respectively.
Petitioners, vide para 10 of the writ
petition contends that office bearer oaf the
society had obtained a Vakalatnama from
them before cancellation of the agreement
i.e. 4.3.1991 on the pretext that they shall
pursue
the
'Land-Acquisition"
proceedings before concerned authorities
and on the basis of that Vakalatnama, the
Society filed writ petition no. 2255 of
1991 in this Court challenging the
aforesaid
notifications
under
Land
Acquisition Act.

6. It is not necessary for us to go
into the details of the said writ petition
since parties to the present proceedings
are
not
challenging
the
'Land
Acquisition'
proceedings
which
ultimately culminated into 'compensation
award' in favour of the petitioners who
are recorded as tenure holders.

7. Vide para 14 of the writ petition it
is pleaded that petitioners submitted
representation dated 27.12.1991 to the
respondent
no.
3/Special
Land
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Sri Ravi Narain Malviya and others V. The State of U.P. and others 339
Acquisition Officer bringing to the notice
of the parties that no sale deed was
executed in favour of the Society and that
no person except the petitioners, were
entitled for compensation in respect of the
land in question. It was also prayed that
compensation be not paid to any one
without
petitioners'
consent
and
verification. A true copy of the said
representation dated 27.12.1991 has been
filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ petition.

8. In para 16 of the writ petition it is
stated that, without giving opportunity of
hearing or notice to the petitioners or
obtaining consent of the petitioners an
order dated 2.6.1992 was passed and a
cheque was also prepared for payment of
compensation to the Society. It has also
come on record that cheque was prepared
on 2.6.1992 itself and on the following
day i.e. 3.6.1992 encashed it from the
bank. It appears that petitioners again on
10.6.1992 made a representation objecting
payment of compensation to any other
person, copy of the said representation is
Annexure 2 to the writ petition.

9. It will suffice to mention that
petitioners continued to approach concern
authorities asking for 'no payment' under
compensation award to any one including
the society and also finally made
complaint to the concerned authorities.

10. It is also contended that the
petitioners, as an abundant caution,
submitted
a
representation
dated
11.6.1992
to
the
Commissioner,
Allahabad Division, Allahabad protesting
against payment in favour of the society.
The commissioner in turn vide order
dated 11.6.1992 directed the District
Magistrate, Allahabad to hold an enquiry
and to stop payment. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer also passed an order
dated 10.6.1992 stopping payment of the
cheque. True copy of the order dated
10.6.1992 and 11.6.1992, referred to
above have been filed as Annexures 3 & 4
to the writ petition respectively.

11. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer
in
compliance
with
the
Commissioner's order dated 11.6.1992,
after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the Society, vide order dated August 23,
1994/Annexure 7 to the writ petition held
that payment in favour of the Society is
illegal, that the society played fraud by
concealing relevant material facts, it
succeeded in receiving and encashing the
cheque. In this order it was also directed
that F.I.R. should be filed against the
person responsible for such fraudulent act.

12. In pursuance to the aforesaid
order dated August 23, 1994, Collector
issued another order dated April 27, 1995
requiring S.D.M. Chail, Allahabad to
recoverk the amount fraudulently received
by the Society, by taking steps under
Revenue Recovery Act. In pursuance
thereof Tahsildar issued a recovery
citation
dated
1.8.1995
against
the
Society.

13. The Society, being aggrieved
filed writ petition no. 30168 of 1995-
Prayag Up Niveshan Avas Evam
Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Balrampur Vs.
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Allahabad and others (including present
petitioners and prayed for quashing of the
aforesaid order dated 23.8.1994/Annexure
7 to the Writ petition as well as the
consequential order of recovery dated
27.4.1995/Annexure 8 to the writ petition
and recovery citation dated 1.8.1995.

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
14. Operative portion of the
judgment and order dated January 8,
1996/Annexure 9 to the writ petition,
passed in the aforesaid writ petition
reads-

".....
"In the result, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned notification
Annexure VII and VIII to the petition are
quashed . It is however, made clerk that
this decision will not in any manner
prejudice the right of respondents no. 1
and 2 to recover the amount in question in
accordance with law. There is no order as
to costs."

15. Above quoted order/judgment
shows that Court rejected the prayer of
the petitioner- and specifically observed
that the said judgment was not to
prejudice in any manner rights of the
authorities to recover the amount in
question in accordance with law. The
respondent authorities, who have filed
counter affidavit do not plead that any
appeal
was
filed
against
the
said
judgment.

16. The petitioners have filed copy
of the letter dated 28.6.1996 written by
Special Land Acquisition Officer, to the
petitioners/Annexure 10 to the writ
petition informing of the High Court
judgment and order dated 8.1.1996,
canceling
recovery
certificate
in
pursuance of the aforesaid High Court
judgment, a review application has been
filed against aforesaid judgment ink High
Court and compensation amount shall be
paid to the petitioners in accordance with
the orders of the High Court and as and
when this amount is recovered from the
Society.

17. We are conscious that the
Society has not been impleaded in this
petition kand that we are not sitting in
review or appeal over the judgment and
order of the High Court dated 8.1.1996
but we are constrained to note from
perusal of the said judgment and order
dated 8.1.1996, that it was not argued that
the High Court should not have interfered
and granted relief to the said petitioner
(society), in exercise of its discretionary
jurisdiction
under
Article
226,
Constitution of India, once it was proved
that Society had resorted to fraud and
misrepresentation
in
misappropriating
compensation amount.

18. The facts of the instant case are
glaring.

The then Secretary of the Society,
apparently colluded with the Government
Officials
(the
then
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer) and ensured that
payment is made to the person acting as
the
Secretary
of
the
Society, and
succeeded din depriving the persons in
whose favour compensation award stood
(namely the petitioners). It is evident that
there was a pre conceived plan to play
fraud which is evident from the fact that
cheque was prepared on 2.6.1992 and it
was encashed on the following day i.e.
3.6.1992 ignoring the representation of
the petitioners requesting the then Special
Land Acquisition Officer not to make
payment to any other person.

19.
A
supplementary counter
affidavit (sworn by present Special Land
Acquisition Officer- Nagendra Sharma)
has
been
filed
enclosing
therewith
documents to show that a F.I.R. dated
24.2.2004 has been lodged against one Jai
Prakash Ojha (the then Secretary to the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Sri Ravi Narain Malviya and others V. The State of U.P. and others 341
Society), Tulsi Ram Gangwar ( the then
concerned
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer), and Dev Nath Singh ( the then
Chief Revenue Officer), coy of the said
F.I.R. dated 24.2.2004 is Annexure 2 to
the Supplementary Counter Affidavit.

20. Why there is inordinate delay in
filing the F.I.R.? Annexure 1 to the
Supplementary counter affidavit is the
notice dated 21.2.2004 to Jai Prakash
Ojha, Secretary to the Society. Why
notice was not sent earlier immediately
after delivery of the High Court judgment
and order dated 8.1.1996/Annexure 9 to
the Writ petition. These are the matters to
be probed and require necessary action
against delinquent officers. This shows
complete apathy on the part of the officers
to initiate enquiry in the matter.

21. In the above state of affairs, we
deem it appropriate to direct the District
Magistrate,
Allahabad,
and
Chief
Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow
to take requisite steps and initiate
departmental enquiry forthwith against
concerned
erring
officers
and,
if
necessary,
suspend
the
delinquent
officer/s whose integrity is doubtful. An
officer who indulges in and colludes with
others to misappropriate money by
playing fraud, does not deserve to be in
the office even for a moment. The District
Magistrate shall also ensure adequate
action under Societies Registration Act in
accordance with law, apart from criminal
proceedings on the basis of the F.I.R.
lodged against the officers of the Society
who are responsible in playing fraud. In
order to ensure recovery of the embezzled
amount,
the
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad and the S.S.P., Allahabad shall
take all steps including arrest, etc. and
other coercive measures against Jai
Prakash Ojha, the then Secretary of the
Society forthwith.

22. We find that in para 20 of the
Counter
affidavit
sworn
by
Ghyan
Prakash Srivastava , filed on behalf of the
respondents, in reply to the para 36 of the
writ petition it is stated that only recorded
tenure holders are entitled to receive
compensation, as such, there is a statutory
obligation of the respondents to pay
compensation amount to the petitioners.

23. Learned Standing Counsel had
no answer as to why compensation
amount be not paid to the petitioners
when compensation award stands in
favour of the petitioners. It has already
been found during enquiry, vide order
dated 23.8.1994, passed by Special Land
Acquisition Officer/Annexure 7 to the
writ petition that the then Secretary of the
Society had succeeded in withdrawing
compensation amount by fraud and
having
committed
forgery
and
misrepresentation, and also in view of the
judgment
and
order
dated
8.1.1996/Annexure 9 to the writ petition
passed by this Court in Writ petition no.
30168 of 1995.

24. In the result, there appears to be
no logic or reason for depriving the
petitioners from receiving compensation
amount. In case, respondent authorities
had made payment of the compensation
amount to third person who was not
entitled to receive the same, it is the
respondent authorities to ensure recovery
but that cannot be an excuse/pretext to
deprive of the 'compensation amount' to
the rightful persons. We hold that the
petitioners are entitled to the relief
claimed in the writ petition.

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
25. Accordingly, we issue a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondent
nos. 1,2,& 3 , their officers, employees,
agents, etc. to ensure payment of
compensation of the amount of Rs.
3,74,205.51 P. in lieu of compulsory
acquisition of the land in plot no. 790, in
Mauza
Puresurdas,
Pargana
Jhunsi,
district Allahabad alongwith interest @
10% per annum simple interest within two
months from today.

26. Writ petition stands allowed
with costs which we quantify at Rs.
10,000/- and to be paid to the petitioners
within two month from today.

27. Copy of this judgment shall be
sent to the District Magistrate, Allahabad,
and the S.S.P., Allahabad and the Chief
Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow
within four weeks from today.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE V.N. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5018 of 2004

Subhash Chandra & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Sharad Chandra Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudhir Agarwal
S.C.

U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975Rr. 5,6,16,17,18- Constitution of India,
Articles 14,16,233 (2)-advertisement for
HJS
Examination-petitioners
being
eligible applied-Admit cards issued for
appearing
in
written
examination-
declared
successful
in
written
examination-called for interview initially
in January 2004-Meanwhile they were
selected and joined UP Judicial Service-
applied for permission through District
Judges,
who
forwarded
to
High
Court/Administrative
Judge-
Initially
accorded provision-Selection committee
not interview on ground of ineligibility,
since they had joined U.P. Judicial
Service-Therefore
ceased
to
be
an
Advocate on date of interview-Held,
there is no logic to exclude a person
selected in Judicial Service and a person
in service other than judicial service does
not suffer such disqualification-Further
no authority other than Full Court is
competent
to
decide
ineligibility
of
candidates- writs allowed.

Held: Paras 43 & 101

A candidate like the petitioners, who
joins 'judicial service' after submitting
application
form
and
permitted
in
written examination, merely carries a
temporary kind of 'handicap/hurdle and
does
not
render
ineligibility
or
'disqualification' in its ordinary sense
and therefore, need not be normally
excluded/debarred
except
for
very
compelling and relevant reasons. There
is nothing on record to show that the
petitioners
as
candidates
of
Higher
Judicial Service Examination shall not be
in a position to surrender their lien
and/or quit the posts held by them in
'judicial service' by resigning if he is
offered 'appointment' in H.J.S. Under
Article 233 (2) of the Constitution.

In
this
case
also,
two
candidates
working as Additional District Judges in
the Jharkhand State, were permitted to
appear in the interview, while the
petitioners were not allowed to appear in
interview, on the ground that, they
joined judicial service. It is clear
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in