# Yatendra Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 1017
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-06-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40266 of 2014
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yatendra-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42926
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art.-226-Petition
seeking exemption from acquisitionclaiming parity of judgment by which
same
notification
quashed-held-once
petitioner
accepted
compensation
without questioning acquisition-therein
at
mercy
of
authority-also
availed
remedy for enhancement of amount-no
benefit of judgment relied by petitioner
available.

Held: Para-5 & 6

## Text

2 All]. Sunita Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1017
District
Magistrate,
therefore,
has
committed an error by proceeding on the
strength of old notice dated 27.6.2014.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Smt. Manju R.
Chauhan for the caveator - Manju Lata.

2. The petitioner is the elected
Chairperson of the Kshetra Panchayat,
Arniya, District Bulandshahr. A no
confidence motion was initiated against
her which came to be challenged by the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37050 of
2014. The challenge succeeded on the
ground that there was an absence of 15
days of clear notice as required under
Section 15(3)(ii) of the Uttar Pradesh
Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat
Adhiniyam, 1961. The writ petition was
allowed
and
the
proceedings
were
quashed.

3. The net result of the said
judgment was that since the convening
of the meeting was quashed it was open
to the members to convene a fresh
meeting in accordance with Section 15
of the Act.

4.

The
District
Magistrate,
Bulandshahr has passed an order for
convening a fresh meeting on the basis of
the old notice itself fixing 16th August,
2014.

5. The contention of Sri D.P. Singh
is that this cannot be done and a fresh
notice
has
ensued
with
a
clear
stipulation that the meeting shall be held
not later than 30 days of the date of the
notice.

6. In the instant case, the notice is
dated 27th June, 2014, and therefore,
the meeting could have been convened
prior to 27th July, 2014. The said date
has already passed by and as such any
future date cannot be fixed under the old
notice.
The
District
Magistrate,
therefore, has committed an error by
proceeding on the strength of old notice
dated 27.6.2014.

7. Smt. Manju R. Chauhan contends
that the writ petition does not implead the
members in this writ petition and
therefore it is not maintainable.

8. We are unable to agree, in view of
the conclusions drawn hereinabove that
the order passed by the District Magistrate
is ex-facie illegal and in teeth of the
statutory provision of Section 15.

9. Smt. Manju R. Chauhan could not
successfully defend the impugned order
nor could the learned Standing Counsel
point out differently.

10. Consequently, on the aforesaid
legal position that emerges the impugned
order
dated
26th
July,
2014
is
unsustainable and is hereby quashed
without prejudice to the rights of the
members to bring about a fresh motion in
accordance with law.

11. The writ petition is allowed.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2014
BEFORE
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40266 of 2014

Yatendra Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pankaj Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh

Constitution of India-Art.-226-Petition
seeking exemption from acquisitionclaiming parity of judgment by which
same
notification
quashed-held-once
petitioner
accepted
compensation
without questioning acquisition-therein
at
mercy
of
authority-also
availed
remedy for enhancement of amount-no
benefit of judgment relied by petitioner
available.

Held: Para-5 & 6
4. The petitioners claim benefit of
getting back the land on the ground that
since in the case of Harkaran Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2011 (6) ADJ
755, the entire Notification has been
quashed, therefore, the land deserves to
be returned to the petitioners.

5. We are unable to agree with this
proposition for the simple reason that
this issue about the impact of the said
decision which was under reference was
squarely dealt with by the Full Bench
decision in the case of Gajraj and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (11)
ADJ Page 1, alongwith the issue relating
to those farmers who had filed writ
petitions that were dismissed and where
those who had not filed their writ
petitions where the court in Paragraph
Nos. 480 and 481 recorded findings
which are extracted herein below:-
"480. There is one more aspect of the
matter which needs to be considered.
The apex Court in (2010) 4 Supreme
Court Cases 17 Om Prakash Vs. Union of
India has held that when a declaration is
quashed by any Court, it will only for the
benefit of those who have approached
the Court. Following was laid down in
paragraph 74:

Case Law discussed:
2011(11) ADJ; (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases
17; W.P. No. 67209 of 2013 dated 13.05.2014.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Dubey, learned
Counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners have come up for
the following reliefs:-

"(i) to issue writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to return back the land
comprising of Khasra No.429 Area
0.4215 Hect. of revenue Village Patwari,
Pargana Dadri, Dehsil Dadri, District -
Gautam Budh Nagar, to the petitioners.

(ii) to issue writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to take any action and not
to make any construction upon the land of
the petitioners comprising of Khasra
No.429, Area 0.4215 Hect. of revenue
Village Patwari, Pargana Dadri, Tehsil
Dadri, District - Gautam Budh Nagar.

(iii) to issue any other order or
direction which the Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case.

(iv) to award the costs of the petition
to this petitioners."

3. At the very outset, Sri Pankaj
Dubey,
learned
Counsel
for
the
2 All]. Yatendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1019
petitioners, states that the petitioners have
not filed any writ petition challenging the
acquisition proceedings at any stage.

4. The petitioners claim benefit of
getting back the land on the ground that
since in the case of Harkaran Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2011 (6) ADJ
755, the entire Notification has been
quashed, therefore, the land deserves to be
returned to the petitioners.

5. We are unable to agree with this
proposition for the simple reason that this
issue about the impact of the said decision
which was under reference was squarely
dealt with by the Full Bench decision in
the case of Gajraj and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2011 (11) ADJ Page 1,
alongwith the issue relating to those
farmers who had filed writ petitions that
were dismissed and where those who had
not filed their writ petitions where the
court in Paragraph Nos. 480 and 481
recorded findings which are extracted
herein below:-

"480. There is one more aspect of the
matter which needs to be considered. The
apex Court in (2010) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 17 Om Prakash Vs. Union of India
has held that when a declaration is
quashed by any Court, it will only for the
benefit of those who have approached the
Court. Following was laid down in
paragraph 74:

"The facts of the aforesaid cases
would show that in the case in hand as
many as four declarations under Section 6
of the Act were issued from time to time.
Finally when declaration is quashed by
any Court, it would only enure to the
benefit of those who had approached the
Court. It would certainly not extend the
benefit to those who had not approached
the Court or who might have gone into
slumber."

481. As noticed above, the land has been
acquired of large number of villagers in
different villages of Greater Noida and Noida.
Some of the petitioners had earlier come to
this Court and their writ petitions have been
dismissed as noticed above upholding the
notifications which judgments have become
final between them. Some of the petitioners
may not have come to the Court and have left
themselves in the hand of the Authority and
State under belief that the State and Authority
shall do the best for them as per law. We
cannot loose sight of the fact that the above
farmers and agricultures/owners whose land
has been acquired are equally affected by
taking of their land. As far as consequence
and effect of the acquisition it equally affects
on all land losers. Thus land owners whose
writ petitions have earlier been dismissed
upholding
the
notifications
may
have
grievances that the additional compensation
which was a subsequent event granted by the
Authority may also be extended to them and
for the aforesaid, further spate of litigation
may start in so far as payment of additional
compensation
is
concerned.
In
the
circumstances, we leave it to the Authority to
take a decision as to whether the benefit of
additional compensation shall
also
be
extended to those with regard to whom the
notifications of acquisition have been upheld
or those who have not filed any writ petitions.
We leave this in the discretion of the
Authority/State which may be exercised
keeping in view the principles enshrined
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

6. Apart from this, Sri Ramendra
Pratap Singh for the respondent has
invited the attention of the Court to the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the
1020 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of Km. Pushpa Yadav and another Vs.
State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition
No.67209 of 2013 dated 13.5.2014, the
operative part whereof is extracted herein
below:

"The petitioners, not being a party in
any of the writ petitions filed earlier
challenging the notifications, have already
accepted the initial amount of compensation
under an agreement entered into in terms of
the 1997 Rules and thereafter have also been
given the benefit of payment of additional
compensation of 64.70%, which has been
accepted by them even after the decision in
the case of Har Karan Singh (supra), would
now not be entitled to any such benefit of
being given back the land, which was
acquired under the said notifications.

7. As such the prayer made in this
writ petition does not deserve to be
granted. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed."

8. Following the ratio of the Full
Bench as well as the ratio of the Division
Bench decision, the reliefs prayed for
cannot be granted.

9. The writ petition is misconceived
and is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41011 of 2014

Jaipal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. Muzaffarnagar & Ors. Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dhirendra Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Smt. Karuna Srivastava
Sri Santosh Srivastava

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act-Section
11-read with Rule 109 of Consolidation
of Holding Rules-during consolidation
operation Chak carved out with name of
Mr. 'A' after his death-S.O.C. Held 1⁄2
share to each son of deceased Chak
holder-the consolidation officer instead
of implementing the order with 1⁄2 share
to each-started partition by meter and
bounds-held-instead making entry of 1⁄2
share
beyond
that
entire
exercise
without jurisdiction-partition can be only
under 176 U.P.Z. A & L.R. Act-petition
allowed.

Held: Para-9
Therefore, this writ petition is liable to
be
allowed.
The
orders
impugned
deserve
to
be
set
aside.
The
Consolidation Authorities are liable to be
directed to only make an entry in the
relevant revenue records pertaining to
chak no. 293 and record the names of
the parties showing their respective
shares to be 1/2 each therein and any
order
beyond
this
will
be
without
jurisdiction. Thereafter it will be open for
the parties to file a suit for partition for
demarcation of their respective shares
by metes and bounds on the spot before
the competent court.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Bahadur
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Santosh Srivastava, who has filed
caveat on behalf of respondent no. 4, the
sole contesting respondent. With consent
of the parties this petition is being decided
finally without calling for a counter.