IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BINOD KUMAR ROY, LAKSHMI BIHARI
BRIJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 44906 Of 1999
Decided On : 02/03/2000
Land Revenue Act - Creation of new district - Sec. 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U. P. Act No. III of 1901) - Sec. 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P. Act, No. 1 of 1904) - Sec. 4, 13 and sub-sec. (I) of Sec. 14 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. XII of 1887) - Section 5 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No,. IX of 1887) - Proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 12 of 1973) - Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. X of 1897) - Section 59 A of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (Act No. V of 1920) - Clause (d) of Sec. 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894) - Sec. 7 and Sec. 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) - The judgment discusses the legal rights of the petitioner, the effect of deletion of Respondent No. 4, and the earlier Division Bench Judgment in Samvidhan Bahali Andolan v. Union of India, and concludes that the subsequent Division Bench judgment does not constitute a binding precedent. The judgment also addresses the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of U. P. and the creation of the Judicial district of Auraiya.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the creation of a new district named Auraiya as a Revenue district as well as Judicial district. The petitioners argued that the creation of the new district was arbitrary and not in accordance with the policy and norms laid down by the Government. They also raised concerns about the lack of infrastructure and financial analysis for the new district. The respondents argued that the State Government had the power to create new districts and that the creation of Auraiya was based on administrative exigencies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the creation of the new district Auraiya was within the exclusive power of the State Government and that the petitioners' arguments did not hold. The court also noted that the earlier Division Bench judgment in Samvidhan Bahali Andolan v. Union of India did not constitute a binding precedent. The court further held that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of U. P. did not establish a binding legal precedent.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of creating a new district, the authority of the State Government to do so, and the compliance with policy and norms in the creation of Auraiya.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the creation of a new district lies within the exclusive power of the State Government and that the subsequent Division Bench judgment did not constitute a binding precedent. The court also found that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of U. P. did not establish a binding legal precedent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition challenging the creation of the new district Auraiya as a Revenue district and Judicial district, and also dismissed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44906 of 1999 without cost. The court directed the office to hand over a copy of the order to the learned Standing Counsel for its intimation to the Government.
( 2 ) CIVIL Misc. Writ Petition No. 44906 of 1999 has been filed by 5 Advocates of the Collectorate Bar, Etawah for commanding the Respondents by issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to give effect to and to quash (i) the Notification dated 18/09/1997 (as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and (ii) the letter dated 22-7-1999 of the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (as contained in Annexure-1a to the writ petition ). In substance the prayer of the petitioners is to quash the creation of the new district named Auraiya as a Revenue district as well as Judicial district both. 2. 1 The document appended as Annexure-1 is the English transalation of Revenue Department-5, Notification No. 2869/1-5-97/322-99-Rev.-9 dated 18/09/1997 published in the U. P. Gazette, Extra. , Part 4, Section (Kha), dated 18/09/1997, p. 2 (AP 690) which reads thus :- "in exercise of the powers under sec. 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U. P. Act No. III of 1901), read with Sec. 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U. P. Act, No. 1 of 1904) the Governor, in partial modification of earlier notifications issued in this behalf, is pleased to create with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette, a new district by the name of Auraiya comprising the areas included in existing Tehsils of Auraiya and Bidhuna of district Etawah with its headquarters at Auraiya and to alter with effect from the said date, the limits of the existing district of Etawah so as to comprise the existing areas except those included in the newly created district of Auraiya.
( 3 ) THE Governor is further pleased to direct that nothing in this notification shall effect any legal proceedings already commenced or pending in any court of law which has hitherto exercised jurisdiction in respect of said areas. "2. 2 The document appended as Annexure-1 A reads thus :-From, Sri S. S. Kulshrestha, HJS, Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. To, Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, Special Secretary, Govern- ment of U. P. , Judicial Section-2, (Subordinate Courts) Section, Lucknow. No. 10582/1d/admin. (A-3)/auraiya : Dated Allahabad 27-7-1999 Subject : Issuance of the Notification in the matter of establishment of Judgeship of the newly created district Auraiya. Sir, I am directed to refer to G. O. No. 2166/vii Nyaya-2-983g/98 dated 25/06/1998, on the above subject, by which Government have created the Court/post of District and Sessions Judge, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chief Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge (Junior Division) for the newly created Auraiya district and to send herewith a copy each of the draft notifications for the aforesaid five Courts as detailed below :- I) Under section 4,13 and sub-sec. (I) of Sec. 14 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. XII of 1887 ). AND Section 5 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No,. IX of 1887) II) Under Proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 12 of 1973) read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. X of 1897 ). III) Section 59 A of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (Act No. V of 1920 ). IV) Under clause (d) of Sec. 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894) I am also to send herewith the draft notification pertaining to creation of Sessi
Referred to : Common Cause v. Union of India
Sambidhan Bahali Andolan, v. Union of India
State of Manipur v. Thingujam Brojen Meetei
State of U.P. v. Syenthetics and Chemicals Ltd.
J.R. Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
B. Sharma Rao v. Union Territory of Pondicherry
State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
General Manager, Telecom v. S. Srinivasan Rao
Om Prakash Gargi v. State of Punjab
Sub- Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur
Sri Venkatshwara Rice, Ginning and Groundnut Oil Mills Contractors Co. etc. v. State of A.P.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.