Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Smt. Anaro Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Smt. Anaro Devi vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 01, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/468720

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 15535 of 1996
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

Property - requisition of land - Section 7 and Rule 7 of U. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 - authorities requisitioning land of petitioner and not releasing it - petitioner demanding release of his land - in case of 'requisition' only possession cannot be retained for an indefinite period - ...

Key legal issue
Property
Acts & sections
Uttar Pradesh Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 - Sections 7 - Rule 7

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Anaro Devi

Advocate B.D. Mandhyan and ;Satish Mandhyan, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate Sabajeet Yadav, Adv. and ;S.C.

Legal References

Acts
Uttar Pradesh Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1948 - Sections 7 - Rule 7
Reported In
1999(2)AWC1062

Excerpt

property - requisition of land - section 7 and rule 7 of u. p. rural development (requisitioning of land) act, 1948 - authorities requisitioning land of petitioner and not releasing it - petitioner demanding release of his land - in case of 'requisition' only possession cannot be retained for an indefinite period - government authorities ordered to release land within time prescribed or acquire land after granting compensation. - - it is well-settled that there is distinction between 'acquisition' and 'requisition'.in the case of acquisition of property, the title in the property passes to the person or authority who has acquired it, whereas in the case of requisition, only possession and not the title passes, and that too for a limited period......of requisition, only possession and not the title passes, and that too for a limited period.4. a perusal of the statement of objects of the united provinces rural development (requisitioning of land] act, 1948 says that the act was made because in the eastern districts of the stale tanks, which are the mainsource of irrigation, had become silted up, and hence, the state government wanted to deepen the same for irrigation purposes. requisition was also necessary for making the compost pits and for other similar objects.5. thus, the objects themselves reveal that the property was only to be requisitioned and not acquired. moreover, rule 7 of the rules made under the aforesaid act states that the land which is requisitioned, shall be treated as of lease on payment of half yearly or annual rent. this also indicates that the title of the land did not pass when the property was requisitioned.6. it has been held by the division bench of this court in dropadi devi v. state, 1988 alj 1090 (db), in paragraph 14 that under the guise of the requisition possession of the property cannot be detained by the government for an indefinite period of time. in this case, the requisition order was passed as far back as in 1984.7. following the aforesaid decision, this petition is allowed. the authorities are directed to hand back the possession of the property in dispute within six months of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned or acquire the property under the land acquisition act within the same period after payment of compensation to the petitioner under the act.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notification dated 23.4.1984, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, by which the land of the petitioner was requisitioned under Section 7 of the U. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land] Act, 1948.

3. The petitioner claims to be Bhumidhar of plot No. 319, which is recorded in her name in the revenue record. The land in question was requisitioned but thereafter has neither been released in favour of the petitioner nor has It been acquired. It is well-settled that there is distinction between 'acquisition' and 'requisition'. In the case of acquisition of property, the title in the property passes to the person or authority who has acquired it, whereas in the case of requisition, only possession and not the title passes, and that too for a limited period.

4. A perusal of the statement of objects of the United Provinces Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land] Act, 1948 says that the Act was made because in the eastern districts of the Stale tanks, which are the mainsource of irrigation, had become silted up, and hence, the State Government wanted to deepen the same for irrigation purposes. Requisition was also necessary for making the compost pits and for other similar objects.

5. Thus, the objects themselves reveal that the property was only to be requisitioned and not acquired. Moreover, Rule 7 of the Rules made under the aforesaid Act states that the land which is requisitioned, shall be treated as of lease on payment of half yearly or annual rent. This also indicates that the title of the land did not pass when the property was requisitioned.

6. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Dropadi Devi v. State, 1988 ALJ 1090 (DB), in paragraph 14 that under the guise of the requisition possession of the property cannot be detained by the Government for an indefinite period of time. In this case, the requisition order was passed as far back as in 1984.

7. Following the aforesaid decision, this petition is allowed. The authorities are directed to hand back the possession of the property in dispute within six months of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned or acquire the property under the Land Acquisition Act within the same period after payment of compensation to the petitioner under the Act.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial