Sanskritik Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- 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 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. - the impugned order dated 10.4.95 as well as the order of the learned commissioner dated 23.11.2005 are hereby set aside.ordera.p. sahi, j.1. heard sri m.n. singh learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and sri ajit singh for the respondent no. 4.2. the challenge is to the order dated 10.4,95 as upheld by the learned commissioner in revision vide order dated 23.11.05 whereby the entries allegedly in favour of the petitioner have been expunged.3. the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner society is in possession of plot nos. 268m, 270m and 281m total area of 20 bighas and 3 biswas situate in mauja bingawan pargana/tahsil, kanpur, district kanpur nagar. it is submitted that the land in question was recorded in the name of the tenure holder since 1359 fasli and the said tenure holder executed a sale deed in favour of one umesh chandra bharadwaj. the said umesh chandra bharadwaj had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner society in 1966 whereafter the petitioner society is in continuous possession of the land in dispute.4. it is alleged that an ex parte report had been submitted by the revenue authority behind the back of the petitioner, and the s.d.m. vide order dated 10.4.95 directed the name of the petitioner society to be expunged from the revenue record. it is further alleged that the petitioner had no knowledge about the same and after obtaining a copy of the khatauni they preferred a revision under section 219 of the u.p.z.a. and l.r. act which has been dismissed.5. the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that even if the proceeding had been undertaken for expunging the name of the petitioner society then the same ought to have been done after giving an opportunity of hearing, and having not done so, the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice.6. the submission advanced is that long standing entries should not be ordinarily expunged summarily and at least an opportunity should be given before passing such an order. in support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of chaturgun and ors. v. state of u.p. and ors. : 2005 alj 756 : 2005 (2) awc 1256.7. learned standing counsel and sri ajit singh learned counsel for respondent no. 4 contend that the entries in favour of the petitioner society are fictitious and manipulated inasmuch as they are not in possession of any valid title over the land and that the entries have been manipulated which were rightly expunged by the s.d.m. they further contend that there is no requirement for interference by this court under article 226 of the constitution. it is further submitted that the nature of the proceeding being summary in nature, the petition should not be entertained against such an order.8. having heard learned counsel for the parties and the submissions raised on their behalf, the petitioners have a remedy of getting their rights declared by filing a regular suit. nonetheless, keeping in view the law laid down in the judgment referred to hereinabove, the order expunging the entries that have continued for decades together ought not to have been passed without putting the petitioner to notice.9. in view of this no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending before this court. the impugned order dated 10.4.95 as well as the order of the learned commissioner dated 23.11.2005 are hereby set aside. the s.d.m. respondent no. 3 shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.10. the writ petition is allowed. no order as to costs. learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the s.d.m. be directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. the s.d.m., kanpur nagar shall proceed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months.

Judgment:
ORDER

A.P. Sahi, J.

1. Heard Sri M.N. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Ajit Singh for the respondent No. 4.

2. The challenge is to the order dated 10.4,95 as upheld by the learned Commissioner in revision vide order dated 23.11.05 whereby the entries allegedly in favour of the petitioner have been expunged.

3. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner society is in possession of plot Nos. 268M, 270M and 281M total area of 20 bighas and 3 biswas situate in Mauja Bingawan Pargana/Tahsil, Kanpur, district Kanpur Nagar. It is submitted that the land in question was recorded in the name of the tenure holder since 1359 fasli and the said tenure holder executed a sale deed in favour of one Umesh Chandra Bharadwaj. The said Umesh Chandra Bharadwaj had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner society in 1966 whereafter the petitioner society is in continuous possession of the land in dispute.

4. It is alleged that an ex parte report had been submitted by the revenue authority behind the back of the petitioner, and the S.D.M. vide order dated 10.4.95 directed the name of the petitioner society to be expunged from the revenue record. It is further alleged that the petitioner had no knowledge about the same and after obtaining a copy of the khatauni they preferred a revision under Section 219 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which has been dismissed.

5. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that even if the proceeding had been undertaken for expunging the name of the petitioner society then the same ought to have been done after giving an opportunity of hearing, and having not done so, the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice.

6. The submission advanced is that long standing entries should not be ordinarily expunged summarily and at least an opportunity should be given before passing such an order. In support of his submissions learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in the case of Chaturgun and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. : 2005 ALJ 756 : 2005 (2) AWC 1256.

7. Learned standing counsel and Sri Ajit Singh learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 contend that the entries in favour of the petitioner society are fictitious and manipulated inasmuch as they are not in possession of any valid title over the land and that the entries have been manipulated which were rightly expunged by the S.D.M. They further contend that there is no requirement for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the nature of the proceeding being summary in nature, the petition should not be entertained against such an order.

8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and the submissions raised on their behalf, the petitioners have a remedy of getting their rights declared by filing a regular suit. Nonetheless, keeping in view the law laid down in the judgment referred to hereinabove, the order expunging the entries that have continued for decades together ought not to have been passed without putting the petitioner to notice.

9. In view of this no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending before this Court. The impugned order dated 10.4.95 as well as the order of the learned Commissioner dated 23.11.2005 are hereby set aside. The S.D.M. respondent No. 3 shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

10. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that the S.D.M. be directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The S.D.M., Kanpur Nagar shall proceed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months.