Yogesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Yogesh Sharma vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 03, 1999

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483572

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/483572
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Binod Kumar Roy and;Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 03, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 15183 of 1996
Subject: Service

Case Summary

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

Service - employment to family members - Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India - petitioner's land recorded in name of his father acquired under provision of Land Acquisition Act - plea that notification for providing service to family members of persons whose land acquired issued - petitioner did not bring on...

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6 and 9

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Yogesh Sharma

Advocate Raj Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate Swaroop, Additional A.G. and ;S.N. Singh, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6 and 9
Reported In: 1999(3)AWC2634; (1999)3UPLBEC2052

Excerpt

service - employment to family members - articles 14 and 16 of constitution of india - petitioner's land recorded in name of his father acquired under provision of land acquisition act - plea that notification for providing service to family members of persons whose land acquired issued - petitioner did not bring on record said notification - notification something different - no occasion arise to give employment to family members. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - following order was passed by the bench :learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to file the copies of the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act requiring his land as well as notice under section 9 of the said act......counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the aforementioned order the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record a copy of the award relating toacquisition of the lands in question. he also, contended that in the facts and circumstances mentioned as above, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed for by him.5. sri swaroop, learned additional advocate general appearing on behalf of the state, on the other hand, contended that the only g.o. brought on the record in the form of annexure-1 does not show that the government has decided to give employment to the members of the family of those persons whose lands have been acquired rather merely a list of seniority of those persons have been directed to be prepared to give preference in employment and no direction has been issued that as a matter of course such persons will be given employment.6. a perusal of the g.o. as contained in annexure-1 supports the contention of mr. swaroop. the petitioner has not brought on the record the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act in which the government had mentioned its decision to provide employment to those persons whose lands have been acquired for public purpose nor does the award, which has been brought on the record by the petitioner by way of said annexure-1, shows that thing.7. we, thus, find substance in the argument of the learned additional advocate general andaccept them.8. for the reasonsaforementioned, we are of the viewthat the petitioner is not entitled toissuance of a high prerogative writlike mandamus commanding therespondents to give him employmentde hors of the constitutionalsafeguards provided under article 16read with article 14 of theconstitution.9. we put on record that no occasion arose for us to consider the constitutional validity of such a g. o. deciding and commanding the state officials to provide employment to the members of the family of those persons whose lands have.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.

1. Two fold prayers have been made by the petitioner in this writ petition :

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide Job to the petitioner as per Government Orders issued time to time particularly the G.O. dated 29.6.1988 (Annexure-No. 1 to this writ petition).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations which are already pending for disposal.'

2. According to the petitioner, the lands recorded in the name of his father Ishwari Prasad Sharma were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1971 for the purposes of making a residential colony by the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad ; the State of Uttar Pradesh has issued several notifications and Government Orders for providing service to the members of the family of such persons whose lands have been acquired by the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad appending one of the G.Os. as Annexure-1 ; even though the petitioner is fully entitled to be appointed under the aforementioned Government Orders and had made a representation (as contained in Annexure-5) through the Collector, Agra (respondent No. 1) to the Assistant Commissioner. U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad for providing employment and despite a recommendation made in that regard by Srf Bhagwan Shanker Rawat, Member of Parliament, the respondents are not providing any employment to him and hence this writ petition.

3. When this writ petition was placed on 30.4.1996 before a Division Bench comprising R. A. Sharma and S. R. Alam, JJ. following order was passed by the Bench :

'Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to file the copies of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act requiring his land as well as notice under Section 9 of the said Act. He will also file the copy of the award along with the supplementary affidavit.

List this writ petition thereafter on which date learned counsel may place relevant case laws.

Sd./-R- A. Sharma. J. Sd./-

S. R. Alam, J.'

4. Mr. Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the aforementioned order the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit bringing on record a copy of the award relating toacquisition of the lands in question. He also, contended that in the facts and circumstances mentioned as above, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed for by him.

5. Sri Swaroop, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, contended that the only G.O. brought on the record in the form of Annexure-1 does not show that the Government has decided to give employment to the members of the family of those persons whose lands have been acquired rather merely a list of seniority of those persons have been directed to be prepared to give preference in employment and no direction has been issued that as a matter of course such persons will be given employment.

6. A perusal of the G.O. as contained in Annexure-1 supports the contention of Mr. Swaroop. The petitioner has not brought on the record the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the Government had mentioned its decision to provide employment to those persons whose lands have been acquired for public purpose nor does the award, which has been brought on the record by the petitioner by way of said Annexure-1, shows that thing.

7. We, thus, find substance in the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General andaccept them.

8. For the reasonsaforementioned, we are of the viewthat the petitioner is not entitled toissuance of a high prerogative writlike mandamus commanding therespondents to give him employmentde hors of the constitutionalsafeguards provided under Article 16read with Article 14 of theConstitution.

9. We put on record that no occasion arose for us to consider the constitutional validity of such a G. O. deciding and commanding the State officials to provide employment to the members of the family of those persons whose lands have been acquired, in this writ petition.

10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances we make no order asto cost.

11. The office is directed to handover a copy of this order to the learned standing counsel Sri P. K. Bisaria who has assisted the learned Additional Advocate General during course of his submissions for its intimation to the authority concerned.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Yogesh Sharma vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Service Same Judge Binod Kumar Roy and;Lakshmi Bihari, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16; Land Acquisition ...

Service