Ashok Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.

Ashok Kumar and anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Apr 06, 2004

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/487826

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/487826
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;R.S. Tripathi, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 06, 2004
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 27781 of 2002
Subject: Constitution;Property
Disposition: Petition allowed

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: Constitution;Property
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 300A; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 35

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar and anr.

Advocate P.N. Tripathi and ;K. Dubey, Advs.

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 300A; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 35
Reported In: AIR2005All44

Excerpt

.....must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home 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. - 9. before parting with this case we would like to say that now the time has come when lhe state government must start behaving in a legal manner in the matter of taking over somebody's land which it unfortunately has not been doing in a large number of cases which have come up before us......of taking possession of the land of agriculturists without acquiring the land under the land acquisition act or requisitioning it under the u. p. rural development (requisitioning of land) act had been taken in the proof by the respondents. this fact has been admitted in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit.4. the respondents have alleged that the land was required for building a canal. in a large number of cases which have come up before us the state authorities have alleged that the land which the respondents have taken over is required for making a canal or road or other such purposes. if that is so it was incumbent upon the authorities to follow the procedure under the land acquisition act or under the u. p. rural development (requisitioning of land), act, 1947 or some other statutory enactment. merely on the basis of some g. o. the property of a person cannot be taken over by the government as that would be violative of article 300a of the constitution. it has not been stated in the counter affidavit that the procedure of the land acquisition act or some other act was followed before taking over possession of the petitioner's land,5. in paras 6 to 9 of the counter affidavit it is stated that compensation amount was wrongly determined in excess and paid to the landholders. in para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit it is stated that a cheque of rs. 6,67,700/- was got prepared in favour of the petitioner, but it could not be handed over to the petitioner as he refused to fulfil the illegal demand of the paying authority.6. we see no reason to disbelieve the petitioner, considering the social realities and ethics of today. we hold that the petitioners have not been paid any compensation for their land.7. moreover, the question of paying compensation arises when the land is acquired validly under the land acquisition act or some other enactment. without following the procedure in the statute taking possession of someone's land is simply land grabbing, and is wholly.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is yet another case which has come up before us where the land of the petitioners has been taken over by the Government without following the procedure of the Land Acquisition Act or any other statutory enactment.

3. Article 300A of the Constitution states :

'No person shall be deprived of his property saved by authority of law'.

The petitioners have alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that they are bhumidhars of the land in question. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition it has been stated that the land in question has not been acquired or requisitioned by the respondents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or the U. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act, 1947 and no notification was issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or other enactment. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is alleged that similar type of action of taking possession of the land of agriculturists without acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act or requisitioning it under the U. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land) Act had been taken in the proof by the respondents. This fact has been admitted in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit.

4. The respondents have alleged that the land was required for building a canal. In a large number of cases which have come up before us the State Authorities have alleged that the land which the respondents have taken over is required for making a canal or road or other such purposes. If that is so it was incumbent upon the authorities to follow the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act or under the U. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land), Act, 1947 or some other statutory enactment. Merely on the basis of some G. O. the property of a person cannot be taken over by the Government as that would be violative of Article 300A of the Constitution. It has not been stated in the counter affidavit that the procedure of the Land Acquisition Act or some other Act was followed before taking over possession of the petitioner's land,

5. In paras 6 to 9 of the counter affidavit it is stated that compensation amount was wrongly determined in excess and paid to the landholders. In para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit it is stated that a cheque of Rs. 6,67,700/- was got prepared in favour of the petitioner, but it could not be handed over to the petitioner as he refused to fulfil the illegal demand of the paying authority.

6. We see no reason to disbelieve the petitioner, considering the social realities and ethics of today. We hold that the petitioners have not been paid any compensation for their land.

7. Moreover, the question of paying compensation arises when the land is acquired validly under the Land Acquisition Act or some other enactment. Without following the procedure in the statute taking possession of someone's land is simply land grabbing, and is wholly illegal.

8. We therefore allow the petition and direct the respondents to either restore the possession of the land in question to the petitioners forthwith or pay compensation to them as mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act which will be determined by the District Judge, Jaunpur after hearing the parties concerned within four months of production of a certified copy of this judgment before him and the payment will be made within two months of his decision along with interest, solatium, etc. as provided in the Land Acquisition Act. We also direct that apart from paying compensation as mentioned above the respondents shall also pay an amount of Rs. One lac as exemplary costs to the petitioner for their high handedness and wholly illegal action in depriving the petitioner of his land without following the law and this payment must be paid within four months from today.

9. Before parting with this case we would like to say that now the time has come when Lhe State Government must start behaving in a legal manner in the matter of taking over somebody's land which It unfortunately has not been doing in a large number of cases which have come up before us. We therefore issue a direction to all the authorities in the State that they must follow the law before taking over anyone's property and if they do not do so it will lead to disciplinary action against them apart from crimi-

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2004 Same Parties Ashok Kumar and anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. Same Subject Constitution;Property Same Judge M. Katju and ;R.S. Tripathi, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 300A; Land Acquisition Act, 1...

Constitution;Property