Disposed

Smt.Lalita Shashtri Balika Higher Secondary School and Another v. Union Of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2023WRIC/33531/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected the modification application seeking to alter land area acquired by Railways and condone costs. Directed Railway Manager to complete inquiry against erring officials responsible for illegal encroachment before deciding on cost recovery. Petitioner awarded possession of 0.257 hectares and liberty to correct revenue maps.

What did the court decide?

Modification application rejected. Petitioners awarded possession of 0.257 hectares and liberty to correct revenue map.

Smt.Lalita Shashtri Balika Higher Secondary… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33531 of 2022 Petitioner :- Smt.Lalita Shashtri Balika Higher Secondary School And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh,Amar Bahadur Maurya

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Civil Misc. Modification Application No. 4 of 2023

¶6

This modification application has been filed with two assertions, firstly, that only some area of Gata No. 1254 belonging to the petitioners has been acquired / utilized for the construction work carried out by the Railways by putting concrete sleepers over the said land. The attention of the court is invited to the personal affidavit of the Divisional Railway Manager, North East Railway, Varanasi filed on 31.01.2023.

¶7

Taking note of the said submission, we may record that by the order dated 31.01.2023, a direction was issued to the District Magistrate, Prayagraj to constitute a revenue team to measure / demarcate land in Gata No. 1254 (1-4-17) in the presence of the Railway Authorities and the petitioners / tenure holders of the said land and to carry out the work of fencing of the land in question at the expenses of Railway Authorities, so as to ensure that there shall be no further encroachment by the Railways over the petitioners' property.

¶8

In compliance of the said order, affidavit of the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj has been filed wherein the report of the revenue team has been appended which indicates that the team has inspected the site in question on 07.02.2023, in the presence of the Railway Authorities and measurement of an area of 0.284 hectares of Gata No. 1254 was conducted. The

¶9

possession of an area of 0.257 hectares has been handed over to the petitioners herein. The difference in the area handed over to the petitioner occur on account of the fact that in the village map, lesser area than the area recorded in the revenue records of the plot in question has been shown.

¶10

Be that as it may, for correction in the map, the petitioners herein have been granted liberty to move a proper application before the Revenue Authorities.

¶11

It is further relevant to note that from the report of the revenue team dated 07.02.2023, it is evident that the annual rental value of the land in question for an area of 0.284 hectares of Gata No. 1254 has been assessed by the revenue team under the order passed by this Court which has duly been approved by the District Magistrate. It is, thus, evident that the computation of annual rental value is based on the spot inspection report of the revenue team dated 07.02.2023, which demonstrates that an area of 0.284 hectares of Gata No. 1254 has been utilized by Railways by putting concrete sleepers over the same. The first ground taken for modification of the order dated 30.01.2023, therefore, is liable to be turned down.

¶12

The second submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is to seek modification of the order dated 30.01.2023, i.e. to condone the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed by this Court. A perusal of the order dated 30.01.2023 indicates and it was noted therein that in various communications made by the petitioners with the Railway Authorities since after 2003-04, there was consistent denial on the part of the Railways for utilization of the private land of the petitioners by keeping material such as railway sleepers etc. The cost has, thus, been imposed, taking note of the fact that the Railway Authorities were in denial mode and only after directions of this Court in the present case,

¶13

for the first time, in the personal affidavit filed by the Divisional Railway Manager, North East Railway, Varanasi it was accepted that the Railways has encroached over the land of the petitioners.

¶14

In the personal affidavit of the Divisional Railway Manager, North East Railway, Varanasi, it was undertaken that appropriate action be taken against the erring officials who are found responsible by the Committee constituted by the Divisional Railway Manager, North East Railway, Varanasi, to inquire into the illegal occupation of the petitioners' land. A four members committee has been constituted under the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the deponent.

¶15

In the modification application nothing has been brought on record which could indicate the result of the inquiry being made by the four members committee.

¶16

There is, thus, no good reason for modification of the order whereby cost has been imposed. The prayer for modification is wholly misconceived for the above noted reasons. The modification application is liable to be rejected as such.

¶17

The modification application is rejected, accordingly.

¶18

Order on Memo of Writ Petition

¶19

Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Railways has provided a demand draft bearing no. 851205 dated 03.04.2023 for an amount of Rs. 8,56,367/- only towards the annual rental value of the land in question computed by the Revenue Authorities under the approval of the District Magistrate, Prayagraj. The said demand draft has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioners in the Court today and has been accepted, accordingly.

¶20

The demand draft bearing no. 850918 dated 17.02.2023 for an

¶21

amount of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded towards the cost, which has already been deposited in the office of the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad shall be handed over to the counsel for the petitioners on an application moved by him.

¶22

The Divisional Railway Manager, North East Railway, Varanasi is further directed to conclude the inquiry initiated by him to find out the guilty officials at whose instance, the petitioners have been deprived of their landed property. It is open for the inquiry authority / disciplinary authority to take a decision for realization of cost and the money paid towards annual rental value to the petitioners, from the personal pocket of the erring officials as an outcome of the inquiry, result of which shall be placed before this Court through the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.

¶23

As the grievances of the petitioners raised in the present petition has been met, we, dispose of the present writ petition with the observation that there shall be no interference in the possession of the petitioners over Gata No. 1254, area 0.257 hectares, possession of which has been handed over to them by the revenue team during the inspection made on 07.02.2023 in the presence of Railway Authorities.

¶24

However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent Revenue Authorities for correction in the revenue map by initiating appropriate proceedings.

¶25

Order Date :- 25.4.2023 sailesh

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt.Lalita Shashtri Balika Higher Secondary School and Another v. Union Of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lalita Shashtri Balika Higher Secondary School and Another v. Union Of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijraj and 26 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jiwan Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Devanand Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Smt.Santosh Semwal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagwati Prasad @ Bhabuti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bane Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others