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.

Prakash Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Prakash Chandra vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 28, 2000
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/482506

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. Nos. 24770, 24754 and 24759 of 1994
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

Civil-Property - acquisition of land - Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - respondents refused to consider the petitioners case for granting compensation for land acquisition - on examining facts it was found that no such Order existed - directions were issued to respondents to decide the claims of the petiti...

Key legal issue
Property
Acts & sections
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prakash Chandra

Advocate Vinod Sinha and ;Dinesh Rai, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate P.K. Bisaria and ;Rakesh Tewari Advs. and ;S.C.

Legal References

Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18
Reported In
2000(4)AWC2721

Excerpt

civil-property - acquisition of land - section 18 of land acquisition act, 1894 - respondents refused to consider the petitioners case for granting compensation for land acquisition - on examining facts it was found that no such order existed - directions were issued to respondents to decide the claims of the petitioners in accordance with law. - .....the records, however, were not produced earlier, but only today. after looking into the records as produced before us. sri dinesh rai, holding brief of sri vinod sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that in fact there is no such order dated 9.5.1994 and an incorrect stand has been taken by the respondents.5. sri p.k. bisaria, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, also comes up with a stand that in fact there is no such order dated 9.5.1994 passed by respondent no. 3 on the record.6. accordingly, after drawing an adverse inference against the respondents, we hold that the stand taken by them earlier in regard to existence of order dated 9.5.1994 having been allegedly passed by the respondent no. 3 is an incorrect stand.7. be that as it may, having considered the entire facts and circumstances, we hold that in the absence of any order, mere communications to the petitioners by letters as contained in annexure-2 to the writ petitions were of no consequences and nullify them. we, thus, consider expedient in the interest of justice to command respondent no, 3 to reconsider the prayers of the petitioners for making reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act objectively and without any prejudice taking into consideration the relevant case laws interpreting the principle, nature and scope of section 18 of the act within three months from today by assigning reasons in accordance with law, and order accordingly. we also in the interest of justice and in order to expedite the disposal of the issue, give liberty to the petitioners to appear before respondent no. 3 within three weeks from today who after issuing notice to the state of uttar pradesh will fix a date of fresh hearing of their applications.8. with these observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of, but having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances, without making any order as to cost.9. the office is directed.....

Full Judgment

Binod Kumar Roy and S.K. Jain, JJ.

1. These three writ petitions which have been filed by the petitioners who are residents of villages Sakipur and Rampur Jagir, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad, are being disposed of by this common judgment since common questions and facts are involved.

2. The prayers of the petitioners are to quash the order dated 9.5.1994 refusing to make reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act passed by the Additional District Magistrate/Land Acquisition Officer (Samyukta Sangathan), Ghaziabad (respondent No. 3).

3. Earlier when these writ petitions were heard, it was discovered that really there was no such order dated 9.5.1994 passed by respondent No. 3, rather merely communications by letters made to the petitioners and in view of the stand taken in the respective pleadings of the parties, it was considered necessary in the interest of justice to command the respondents to produce the original records.

4. The records, however, were not produced earlier, but only today. After looking into the records as produced before us. Sri Dinesh Rai, holding brief of Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that in fact there is no such order dated 9.5.1994 and an incorrect stand has been taken by the respondents.

5. Sri P.K. Bisaria, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, also comes up with a stand that in fact there is no such order dated 9.5.1994 passed by respondent No. 3 on the record.

6. Accordingly, after drawing an adverse inference against the respondents, we hold that the stand taken by them earlier in regard to existence of order dated 9.5.1994 having been allegedly passed by the respondent No. 3 is an incorrect stand.

7. Be that as it may, having considered the entire facts and circumstances, we hold that in the absence of any order, mere communications to the petitioners by letters as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petitions were of no consequences and nullify them. We, thus, consider expedient in the interest of justice to command respondent No, 3 to reconsider the prayers of the petitioners for making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act objectively and without any prejudice taking into consideration the relevant case laws interpreting the principle, nature and scope of Section 18 of the Act within three months from today by assigning reasons in accordance with law, and order accordingly. We also in the interest of Justice and in order to expedite the disposal of the issue, give liberty to the petitioners to appear before respondent No. 3 within three weeks from today who after issuing notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh will fix a date of fresh hearing of their applications.

8. With these observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of, but having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances, without making any order as to cost.

9. The office is directed to hand over two copies of this order within one week to the learned standing counsel Sri P.K. Bisaria for communication to respondent No. 3 and follow up of the directions aforementioned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial