Atar Singh and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Atar Singh and ors. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Mar 13, 2007

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/487073

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/487073
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Anjani Kumar and; Dilip Gupta, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 13, 2007
Subject: Property
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 168; [S.B. Sinha & H.S. Bedi, JJ ] Determination of compensation Meaning of income of victim Held, The term income has different connotations for different purposes. A court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question n...

Key legal issue: Property
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Atar Singh and ors.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: H.M.T. Ltd. and Anr. v. Mudappa and Ors.
Reported In: 2007(3)AWC2704

Excerpt

.....at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - it has further been mentioned in the said notification that the provisions of section 17(1) of the act were applicable since the land was urgently required for construction of the aforesaid township and, therefore, in view of the pressing urgency as well as to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an inquiry under section 5a of the act, the direction under section 17(4) of the act was also issued for elimination of the inquiry under section 5a of the act......for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the agra development authority.3. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notification issued under section 4 of the act is without authority of law and de hors the provisions contained in the act and that the entire proceedings for acquisition suffers from legal mala fides and that the right of the petitioner of filing of objections under section 5a of the act have been illegally dispensed with by invoking the provisions of sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the act.4. learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioners have not stated that the declaration under section 6 of the act has been made and, therefore, the present petition for quashing the notification issued under section 4(1) of the act is premature since it is only a proposal.5. we have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.6. we find considerable force in the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the present petition should not be entertained at this stage the declaration under section 6 of the act has not been made. the state government makes a declaration under section 6(1) of the act that the land is needed for the public purpose and, therefore, it is only upon issuance of such a declaration that the person whose land is sought to be acquired can have any cause of action. the notification under section 4(1) of the act is merely a preliminary notification that the land is likely to be needed for a public purpose. in our opinion, all the grounds that have been taken in the present petition can be taken after the issuance of the declaration under section 6 of the act is made.7. in taking the aforesaid view, we find support in the decision of the supreme court in h.m.t. ltd. and anr. v. mudappa and ors. 2007 air scw 1058. in this case, the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Anjani Kumar and Dilip Gupta, JJ.

1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated 3rd January, 2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') notifying for general information that the land mentioned in the Schedule was needed for a public purpose namely for Hi-Tech Township, Agra. It has further been mentioned in the said notification that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act were applicable since the land was urgently required for construction of the aforesaid Township and, therefore, in view of the pressing urgency as well as to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, the direction under Section 17(4) of the Act was also issued for elimination of the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for the Agra Development Authority.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act is without authority of law and de hors the provisions contained in the Act and that the entire proceedings for acquisition suffers from legal mala fides and that the right of the petitioner of filing of objections under Section 5A of the Act have been illegally dispensed with by invoking the provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioners have not stated that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made and, therefore, the present petition for quashing the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act is premature since it is only a proposal.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. We find considerable force in the preliminary objections raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the present petition should not be entertained at this stage the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has not been made. The State Government makes a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act that the land is needed for the public purpose and, therefore, it is only upon issuance of such a declaration that the person whose land is sought to be acquired can have any cause of action. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is merely a preliminary notification that the land is likely to be needed for a public purpose. In our opinion, all the grounds that have been taken in the present petition can be taken after the issuance of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made.

7. In taking the aforesaid view, we find support in the decision of the Supreme Court in H.M.T. Ltd. and Anr. v. Mudappa and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 1058. In this case, the Government had issued a notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Karnataka Act') which is similar to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. The High Court entertained the petition and quashed the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Act overruling the objections raised by the State Government regarding the maintainability of the petition. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court was not right in quashing the notification as it was a preliminary notification merely reflecting the intention of the State Government to acquire land for public purpose. It also observed that it is only at the stage when an appropriate order is passed that the objections raised by the petitioner can be considered.

8. The present petition is, therefore, premature and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2007 Same Parties Atar Singh and ors. vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge Anjani Kumar and; Dilip Gupta, JJ.

Property