Allahabad High Court
BAREILLY NAGAR NIGAM THRU ITS NAGAR AYUKT BAREILLYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the District Magistrate's order merely implements the Court's earlier judgments and the petitioner failed to contest those judgments timely.
Summary
Bareilly Nagar Nigam filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.05.2014 of the District Magistrate, Bareilly, which transferred 0.108 hectare of land to a private respondent. The petitioner argued that the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction under Section 129(5) of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959. The Court noted that the transfer was made to implement its earlier judgments in Writ‑C No.6748 of 2008 and Writ‑C No.18274 of 2011, which directed the State to provide land or compensation to the private respondent. The petitioner had not filed any application to recall or appeal the 2010 judgment despite being aware of it. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Magistrate had jurisdiction to order the transfer of land under Section 129(5) of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959.
- Whether the petitioner could challenge the transfer after the earlier judgments had become final and no appeal was filed.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 — s. 129(5)
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- municipal corporation act
- land transfer
- writ of mandamus
- compensation
- district magistrate
- procedural default
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35921 of 2014
Bareilly Nagar Nigam Thru Its Nagar Ayukt Bareilly
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Tiwari, Hemant Kumar, Satyam
Singh, Shiv Nath Singh(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.C. Pandey, C.S.C.
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present.
However, learned counsel for private respondent no.3 is not present.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi,
learned Chief Standing Counsel-II for the State-respondents.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2014 passed by
the District Magistrate, Bareilly directing the petitioner to transfer 0.108
hectare land out of 0.177 hectare of Gata No.332 situated in Village-
Haidarabad @ Khadua, Bareilly to respondent no.3.
4. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass such order in
view of Section 129(5) of U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959.
5. The record reveals that respondent no.3 has earlier approached this Court
by filing Writ-C No.6748 of 2008 praying that respondents be directed to
pay compensation or to give land equal to that of the same valuation of land
of plot no.588 of respondent no.3 of Village-Haidrabad @ Kharana Pargana,
Tehsil and District Bareilly over which Kharanja road has been constructed
by the Rural Engineering Service, Government of U.P.
6. The aforesaid writ petition was decided by this Court by judgement and
order dated 01.09.2010, which order is being reproduced herein below:-
"By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of
WRIC No. 35921 of 2014
2
mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the compensation or to
give land equal to that of the same valuation of the land belonging to
petitioner of plot no. 588 of village Haidrabad @ Kharana Pergana,
Tehsil and District Bareilly over which the Kharanja road has been
constructed by the Rural Engineering Service, Government of U.P.
A counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that all the
villagers of the village except the petitioner by way of signing the
document for this purpose gave the concerned for the construction of the
said kharanja road for larger interest of the villagers and other public.
Since the petitioner is claiming his right which is attracted by Article 300
(A) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat
concerned is directed to give the land to the petitioner from the land
belonging to Gram Panchayat equal to that of area of plot of the
petitioner or Government may pay compensation to the petitioner.
Petition is disposed of finally."
7. It appears that the order of this Court passed in Writ-C No.6748 of 2008
was not complied with, and thereafter, the respondent no.3 approached this
Court by filing Writ-C No.18274 of 2011 seeking relief that representation
of respondent no.3 be decided. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition has
passed the following order on 25.11.2013:-
"Petitioner has approached this Court with request to direct the
respondent no.2 to decide the representation dated 25.11.2010 within
stipulated period, if possible within one month.
On the presentation of the writ petition, this Court proceeded to pass
following order:-
"Writ petition was filed by the petitioner about his dispossession from the
land in question which was allowed on 1.9.2010 and respondents were
directed to provide the equal land which was taken or to pay
compensation to the petitioner.
Pursuant to the order of this Court, the District Magistrate on 19.4.2011
passed speaking order (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) in which a
direction has been given to the Superintendent Engineer and Executive
Engineer (Rural Engineering Services, Bareilly) to get the needful done.
The complaint is that the official has not complied the order of the
District Magistrate referred above and thus the petitioner is still
suffering.
WRIC No. 35921 of 2014
3
In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court directs the Superintendent
Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of the Rural Engineering Service,
Bareilly, to file their personal affidavit on or before the date fixed stating
about steps which has been taken pursuant to the order dated 19.4.2011".
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, two personal affidavits have
been filed, one by Mohd. Akram. posted as Executive Engineer, Rural
Engineering Department, Bareilly and another by Brijendra Kumar,
posted as Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Department,
Bareilly and both the incumbents at the point of time of filing of personal
affidavit have proceeded to mention that as far as they are concerned,
they are merely executing agency on the spot and providing of
compensation is not at all in their domain and accordingly no liability
should be fastened upon them.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed and thereafter matter has been taken up
for final hearing.
In the entire body of the writ petition, prayer has been made to decide
representation dated 25.11.2010 within stipulated period. Personal
affidavit of incumbents further reflect that as far as District Magistrate is
concerned, District Magistrate has been regularly writing the letter to
the Nagar Nigam, but till today, but till today proceedings have not at all
been finalized.
Consequently, District Magistrate, Bareilly is directed to see and ensure
that proceedings are finalized in accordance with law, preferably within
period of next two months from the date of production of certified copy of
this order. This much is also clear that Nagar Nigam is not a party,
before this Court but Nagar Nigam directed to extend all possible co-
operation in the same, so that matter is finalised.
With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. "
8. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.11.2013, the District
Magistrate has passed an order transferring 0.108 hectare of land out of
0.177 hectare land of Gata No.332 situated in Village-Haidarabad @
Khadua, Bareilly to respondent no.3.
9. We find that the District Magistrate has only complied with the judgement
and order of this Court dated 01.09.2010 passed in Writ-C No.6748 of 2008
and order dated 25.11.2013 passed in Writ-C No.18274 of 2011.
10. We may note that this Court while deciding the Writ-C No.6748 of 2008
WRIC No. 35921 of 2014
4
has directed the respondent-State to give the land to respondent no.3 from
the land belonging to Gram Panchayat equal to that of area of plot of
respondent no.3 or compensation be paid by the Government.
11. In the instant case, the respondent-State has opted to give the land to
respondent no.3 in compliance of the judgement and order of this Court
dated 01.09.2010 passed in Writ-C No.6748 of 2008. If for any reason, the
petitioner was aggrieved by the order of this Court dated 01.09.2010, he
should have filed an application to recall the said order or to challenge the
said order before the higher forum by filing appeal which could very well be
filed by the petitioner by seeking leave of the Court, but the petitioner did
not choose to file any recall application or appeal despite having knowledge
about the order dated 01.09.2010.
12. In such view of the fact, we do not find any substance in the argument of
learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, writ petition lacks merit
and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
March 18, 2026
Sattyarth
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SATTYARTH ANAND
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…