ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
O. H. Mootham, C. J. and Raghubar Dayal, J.
R.L.AURORA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Special Appeal 202 Of 1957
Decided On : 07/30/1958
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dated 30-8-1957, dismissing two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant facts are these : on 31-5-1943, the appellant purchased a plot of agricultural land measuring approximately 9 acres in village Nauraiya Khera in Kanpur district for a sum of Rs. 7,000/-, and shortly thereafter he obtained the surrender of the tenancy rights of the tenant who was in occupation of the plot on payment of Rs. 1,705/ -. He thus obtained actual physical possession over the entire plot. On 31-5-1943, the appellant also obtained a permanent lease of an adjacent plot of land measuring 15. 5 acres. His purpose in acquiring the two plots had been, he says, for the erection of a factory. This object was however frustrated by the fact that on 26-7-1943, the military authorities requisitioned the second of the two plots measuring 15. 5 acres and on 6-5-1944, an area of 1 59 acres out of the first of the two plots; the period of requisition in each case being for 10 years. The appellant was thus left with an area of about 7. 41 acres which he says was ulitised by him for the raising of food crops for which purpose he expended a sum of over Rs. 60,000/- in the construction of a tubewell, water courses, quarters and in enclosing the whole area with a barbed wire fence. On 1-10-1955, the military authorities released the area of 1. 59 acres, thereby restoring the possession of the appellant over the whole of the first of the two plots.
( 2 ) IN 1956 the State Government proposed to acquire an area of land for the erection of a factory for the manufacture of textile machinery parts by the fourth respondent, the Lakshmiratan engineering Works Ltd. On 30-6-1956, it published in the Gazette a notification dated 25-6-1956, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which stated that it was proposed to acquire inter alia, an area of 11. 664 acres in village Nauraiya Khera for the construction of the proposed factory, and as it was of opinion that the case was one of urgency the State government further directed, under Section 17 (4) of the Act that the provisions of Section 5-A would not apply to the acquisition. The area proposed to be acquired included the plot in the possession of the appellant and, it seems, a portion of the adjoining plot which had been requisitioned by the military authorities. On 7-7-1956, another notification dated 5-7-1956, was published in the Gazette where-under the Governor declared, under Section 6 of the Act, that he was satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule thereto (which included the area of 11. 664 acres in Nauraiya Khera) was needed for a Company. By this notification the Governor further directed the Collector of Kanpur to take possession of any waste or arable land forming part of the scheduled area on the expiration of the notice mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act. The appellant thereupon filed a petition in this Court (No. 1561 of 1956) wherein the principal relief sought was the quashing by a writ of certiorari of the notifications dated respectively the 25th June and the 5th July, 1956. Somewhat later, on 11-8-1956, a copy of the agreement between the State Government and the lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. , which had been entered into on 5-8-1956, pursuant to section 41 of the Act, was published in the Gazette.
( 3 ) ON 6-12-1956, during the pendency of the writ petition No. 1561 of 1956, a fresh agreement under Section 41 of the Act was entered into between the Government and the Lakshmiratan engineering Works Ltd. , and thereafter a fresh notification, dated 7-12- 1956, was published in the Gazette on 8-12-195g under Section 6 of the Act. That notification was in exactly the same form as the earlier notification dated the preceding 7th July, save that the area of land sought to be acquired in Nauraiya Khera was stated to be 6. 93 acres. It is common ground that this area is w
REFERRED TO : Kanpur Oil Mills v. Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, Kanpur Range
State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji
Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.