Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Smt. Sushila Devi and ors.

Union of India (Uoi) vs Smt. Sushila Devi and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Aug 25, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/493453

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/493453
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: U.K. Dhaon and ;M.A. Khan, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 25, 2004
Case Number: F.A.F.O. No. 660 of 2002
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123 and 124A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Union of India (Uoi)

Advocate Anil Srivastava, Adv.

Respondent

Smt. Sushila Devi and ors.

Advocate Ravindra P. Singh, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123 and 124A
Reported In: 2006ACJ806; 2005(2)AWC1773

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....act. with these findings the learned tribunal awarded the amount of rs. 4,00,000 to the heirs of the deceased. aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeal has been filed.5. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record and we find that the provisions of section 124a of the railways act are beneficial legislation and strict proof of the matters is not required. the fact that amerika prasad yadav was travelling by train no. 3010 dn. doon express on 19.6.2001 is not disputed even by the railway administration. according to the claimants, it is said that amerika prasad yadav fell accidentally, while the case of the railways is that the deceased himself had endangered his own safety by his negligence and rashness. from the side of the railways there is no evidence at all to show or to suggest that deceased had committed suicide at the place of accident. on the other hand, there is evidence that the body of amerika prasad yadav was found near railway track at a place between kanpur-dariyabad railway stations. there is police report on record showing that amerika prasad yadav died due to accidental fall from the train. such a case is thus squarely covered by the provisions of section 123(c) of the railways act. the learned tribunal was thus fully justified in awarding the amount of compensation. we find no illegality or impropriety in the judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal.6. in the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.7. the amount of compensation, which is in deposit, shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants-respondents. the amount, if any, still remains due, the same shall be deposited by the appellant within four weeks, which shall also be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants-respondents.

Full Judgment

ORDER

U.K. Dhaon and M.A. Khan, JJ.

1. This is an appeal arising out of the judgment and award dated 28.8.2002, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow, thereby awarding a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 by way of compensation to the heirs of deceased Amerika Prasad Yadav.

2. A claim case was filed before the Tribunal with the allegations that deceased Amerika Prasad Yadav was travelling on 19.6.2001 by Train No. 3010 Dn., Doon Express. He accidentally fell down at a place in between Kanpur-Dariyabad Railway Stations and died on the spot. The claimants are his heirs and have filed the claim petition under Section 124A of the Railways Act.

3. The claim case was contested by the Railway administration amongst others on the grounds that deceased Amerika Prasad Yadav was not a bona fide passenger of the train in question and even if he was travelling in the said train, he had endangered his own safety by his negligence and rashness and, therefore, heirs are not entitled to claim any compensation.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues in the case and after recording evidence and on appraisal thereof came to the conclusion that the present claimants are the dependants of the deceased and further that on 19.6.2001 the death of Amerika Prasad Yadav was caused due to 'untoward incident' within the meaning of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. With these findings the learned Tribunal awarded the amount of Rs. 4,00,000 to the heirs of the deceased. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeal has been filed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record and we find that the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act are beneficial legislation and strict proof of the matters is not required. The fact that Amerika Prasad Yadav was travelling by Train No. 3010 Dn. Doon Express on 19.6.2001 is not disputed even by the Railway Administration. According to the claimants, it is said that Amerika Prasad Yadav fell accidentally, while the case of the railways is that the deceased himself had endangered his own safety by his negligence and rashness. From the side of the railways there is no evidence at all to show or to suggest that deceased had committed suicide at the place of accident. On the other hand, there is evidence that the body of Amerika Prasad Yadav was found near railway track at a place between Kanpur-Dariyabad Railway Stations. There is police report on record showing that Amerika Prasad Yadav died due to accidental fall from the train. Such a case is thus squarely covered by the provisions of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act. The learned Tribunal was thus fully justified in awarding the amount of compensation. We find no illegality or impropriety in the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.

6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

7. The amount of compensation, which is in deposit, shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants-respondents. The amount, if any, still remains due, the same shall be deposited by the appellant within four weeks, which shall also be allowed to be withdrawn by the claimants-respondents.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2004 Same Parties Union of India (Uoi) vs Smt. Sushila Devi and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge U.K. Dhaon and ;M.A. Khan, JJ. Acts & Sections Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 123 and 124A

Civil