Allowed

Prem Pal Saroj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 May 2022WRIA/3370/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition challenged an order imposing a surcharge and a subsequent recovery notice. Relying on a prior decision regarding the lack of valid notification designating the District Magistrate as the 'Prescribed Authority' under Section 27, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order and recovery notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 09.07.2019 and the recovery notice dated 01.09.2021 were quashed.

Prem Pal Saroj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3370 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Prem Pal Saroj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Babu Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Ram Babu Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents-1 to 4.

¶6

Instructions placed by learned Standing Counsel before this Court are taken on record.

¶7

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by respondent-2, District Magistrate, Saharanpur, District Saharanpur (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) as well as the recovery notice dated 01.09.2021 issued by respondent-3, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharanpur (Annexure-8 to the writ petition).

¶8

Present writ petition came up for admission on 18.04.2022 and this Court passed following order:-

¶9

"Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks time to obtain instruction in this matter.

¶10

List this case as fresh on 04.05.2022."

¶11

Pursuant to above order dated 18.04.2022, learned Standing Counsel has received instructions. Learned Standing Counsel contends that order impugned in present writ petition has already been set aside by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2019 passed in Writ-C No. 32013 of 2019 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others). For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:-

¶12

"Learned Standing Counsel fairly concedes that the impugned order dated 09 July 2019 would not sustain in light of the decision rendered by the Court in Writ C No.24902 of 2019 (Uday Pratap Singh @ Harikesh Vs. State of U.P. And 4 Others). In that petition, this Court dealing with the authority and jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to impose surcharge under Section 27 of the 1947 Act, held as under:

¶13

"On a consideration of the aforesaid conclusions the Court holds: -

¶14

A. The expression "Prescribed Authority" referred to in Section 27(2) of the Act means an authority duly designated for that purpose in

¶15

accordance with the provisions made in Section 2(q)(ii);

¶16

B. The State has failed to establish that the District Magistrate was duly notified as the Prescribed Authority in accordance with the mandate of Section 2(q)(ii). In the absence of a notification designating the District Magistrate as the competent authority for the purposes of Section 27(2), the orders of surcharge impugned cannot be sustained;

¶17

C. The prescription of a procedure for assessment and recovery of surcharge in Chapter XIII of the Rules and the assignment of a role to the District Magistrate or the District Panchayat Raj Officer thereunder cannot be held to be a compliance of the requirement of Section 27(2);

¶18

D. Rules 256-259 as contained in Chapter XIII of the Rules are only an extension of the requirement placed by Section 27(2) to lay in place a structure to "fix the amount of the surcharge according to the procedure that may be prescribed;

¶19

E. Section 27(2) neither sanctions nor envisages the designation of a Prescribed Authority by way of a rule or other subordinate legislation;

¶20

F. The prima facie findings of wrongdoing arrived at during the course of or in contemplation of an enquiry initiated under Section 95(1)(g) cannot form the foundation for levy or recovery of surcharge."

¶21

In light thereof, it is manifest that the impugned order would not sustain. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09 July 2019 accordingly is set aside."

¶22

In view of the facts noted above, the present writ petition also succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.07.2019 passed by respondent-2, District Magistrate, Saharanpur, District Saharanpur (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) as well as the recovery notice dated 01.09.2021 issued by respondent-3, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharanpur (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), are hereby quashed.

¶23

Cost made easy.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.5.2022 Saif

¶25

Digitally signed by SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN Date: 2022.05.21 13:05:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prem Pal Saroj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Pal Saroj v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Vs the State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sanjay Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sundar Lal Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raj Kapoor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samarjeet Bhargav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others