Mahavir and ors. Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.

Mahavir and ors. vs The State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Writ petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Sep 25, 1978

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/447461

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/447461
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: N.D. Ojha and ;R.R. Rastogi, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 25, 1978
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ No. 6077 of 1978
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - 'local authority' defined - Section 12 (2) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and Section 3 (31) of General Clauses Act,1897 - whether Mandi Samiti a 'local authority' or not - local Act has received President's assent - Mandi Samiti is 'local authority' under local Act - General Clauses Act not to...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Writ petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 - Sections 12(2); General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 3(31); Constitution of India - Article 254

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahavir and ors.

Advocate Ramendra Asthana, Adv.

Respondent

The State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 - Sections 12(2); General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 3(31); Constitution of India - Article 254
Reported In: AIR1979All3

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........mandi adhiniyam, 1964 (u. p. act no. xxv of 1964) which received the president's assent on october 24, 1964, prescribes for establishment and incorporation of a committee for every market area. the committee is to be called the mandi samiti. sub-section (2) of section 12 provides that the committee shall be deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of land acquisition act, 1894 and any other law for the time being in force. 3. counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on valjibhai miljibhai soneji v. state of bombay (air 1963 sc 1890). in that case the question arose whether the state transport corporation was a local authority within the meaning of the land acquisition act. the learned attorney general placed reliance on section 29 of the state road transport act, 1950 which provided that the corporation shall for all purposes be deemed to be a local authority. it was held (at pp. 1894-95): 'no doubt, that is so. but the definition contained in this act cannot override the definition contained in the general clauses act of 1897 which alone must apply for construing the expression occurring in a central act like the land acquisition act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context. though land acquisition is now in the concurrent list and, therefore the state can legislate, the bombay act not having received the president's assent cannot prevail against the meaning of the expression 'local authority' in that act. no repugnancy is pointed out.' in the instant case, in view of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the u. p. krishi utpadan mandi adhiniyam there is apparent repugnancy. it the definition of 'local authority' as contained in the general clauses act is taken into consideration the mandi samiti will not be a local authority. on the other hand, it section 12 (2) of the u. p. krishi utpadan mandi adhiniyam is taken into consideration it would be a local authority. in the instant case, unlike the bombay state road transport act, the u......

Full Judgment

N.D. Ojha, J.

1. The only point which has been urged by counsel for the petitioners in this writ petition is that the Mandi Samiti for which the land is being acquired is a company within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act and since the procedure prescribed under the said Act for acquisition for a company has not been followed, the proceedings for acquisition are illegal.

2. Having heard learned counsel we are of opinion that there is no substance in this submission. Section 12 of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (U. P. Act No. XXV of 1964) which received the President's assent on October 24, 1964, prescribes for establishment and incorporation of a Committee for every market area. The Committee is to be called the Mandi Samiti. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 provides that the Committee shall be deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and any other law for the time being in force.

3. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Valjibhai Miljibhai Soneji v. State of Bombay (AIR 1963 SC 1890). In that case the question arose whether the State Transport Corporation was a local authority within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Attorney General placed reliance on Section 29 of the State Road Transport Act, 1950 which provided that the Corporation shall for all purposes be deemed to be a local authority. It was held (at pp. 1894-95):

'No doubt, that is so. But the definition contained in this Act cannot override the definition contained in the General Clauses Act of 1897 which alone must apply for construing the expression occurring in a Central Act like the Land Acquisition Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context. Though land acquisition is now in the concurrent list and, therefore the State can legislate, the Bombay Act not having received the President's assent cannot prevail against the meaning of the expression 'local authority' in that Act. No repugnancy is pointed out.'

In the instant case, in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam there is apparent repugnancy. It the definition of 'local authority' as contained in the General Clauses Act is taken into consideration the Mandi Samiti will not be a local authority. On the other hand, it Section 12 (2) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam is taken into consideration it would be a local authority. In the instant case, unlike the Bombay State Road Transport Act, the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, as has already been pointed out above, has received the assent of the President. In this view of the matter notwithstanding the definition of 'local authority' contained in the General Clauses Act the Mandi Samiti or the Committee would be a 'local authority' for the purposes of Land Acquisition Act and as such acquisition for such a Committee cannot be treated as acquisition for a company.

4. No other point has been pressed.

5. In the result, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1978 Same Parties Mahavir and ors. vs The State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge N.D. Ojha and ;R.R. Rastogi, JJ. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 - Sections...

Civil