STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus MANOHAR

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 911 · Decided: 15-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

... 
.-
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MANO HAR 
DECEMBER 15, 2004 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 300A and 226--Land owner deprived of his lands which were 
required by State-No compensation paid-Writ petition by land-owner for C 
direction to State to determine compensation-Allowed by High Court-
Held, there is no evidence to indicate that lands of the owner were acquired 
in accordance with law-High Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under 
Article 226--ln view of the manner in which the State dealt with the matter, 
appeal of State dismissed with exemplary costs. 
D 
Respondent-landowner filed a writ petition before the High Court 
praying for a direction to the appellant-State to determine and pay him 
CQmpensation for his lands wherefrom he was forcibly dispossessed and 
over which the State constructed its office buildings. It was the case of 
the petitioner that in spite of r'epeated appeals, he was not paid com· E 
pensation by the State. There is evidence on record indicating that the 
lands were recorded in the name ofthe petitioner and were not acquired, 
but after the consolidation operation, the State was recorded in posses-
sion thereof. The High Court allowed the writ petition. 
Dismissing the appeal filed by the State, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no evidence to show that the land of the respondent 
had been taken over or acquired in any manner known to law or that he 
had ever been paid any compensation in respect of such acquisition. The 
case proj.ected before the Court by the appellants is utterly untenable 
and not worthy of emanating from any State which professes the least 
regard to being a welfare State. The State authorities have been resisting 
a just and reasonable claim of the respondent. [914-F] 
F 
G 
1.2. This is a case of utter lack of legal authority for deprivation H 
911 
912 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A of the respondent's property by the State Government This case was 
an eminently fit one for exercising the writ jurisdiction of the High 
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court was some-
what liberal in not imposing exemplary costs on the appellants. In view 
of the intransigence displayed by the appellants, the appeal is dismissed 
B with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000. (915-B-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1058 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.99 of the Allahabad High 
C Court in C.M.W.P. No. 27449 of 1992. 
S. W.A. Qadri, Kamlendra Mishra, Rajeev Kumar Dubey and 
Ms. Rashmi Singh for the Appellants. 
D 
Anish Dayal, Abhishek Mishra and Ms. Manjula Gupta for the Re-
spondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J. : The respondent filed a writ petition before 
E the High Court of judicature of Allahabad seeking a writ of Mandamus to 
the appellant- State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers to determine the 
compensation in respect of his land bearing plot no. 3 Ka (0.29 acres), 4 
(0.37 acres) and 3 kha (l.01 acres) in village Chakiya Bhagwanpur, Tehsil 
Lalganj, District Azamgarh, which, according to the respondent, had been 
F taken away forcibly without following any process of law. It was the specific 
case of the respondent that he had been dispossessed from his land and the 
land had been taken by the appellants without payment of any compensation 
and further that the appellants had put up building and structures on the land 
sometime in 1955 and that despite repeated appeals made by him nobody 
was prepared to pay compensation. He enclosed along with the writ petition 
G a letterno. 73/S. T.D.M-91 dated 9/10.4.91 written by the Collector, Azamgarh 
to the Sepcial Land Acquisition Officer Azamgarh to the following effect: 
"Please refer to the application of Shri Manohar s/o Raghunath, 
Mauja Kharga Bhagwanpur, Block Lalganj (enclosed). He has 
H 
stated that the compensation for the land acquired for development 
STATE v. MANOHAR [SR1KR1SHNA, J.] 
913 
Block, Lalganj has not yet been paid even though the construction A 
of the Development Block has been done in the year 1955. 
After looking into matter action be taken to make payment of the 
compensation and I may be informed about the position." 
This was replied to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his 
letter dated 5.8.91 in which he says thus : 
"Please refer to this officer letter no.1159/Aa.S.L.A.D.(J.V.) dated 
23.3.1991; and letter no.28(2)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.