High Court · 2025

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, learned counsel appearing for National Highways Authority of India, Shri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for respondent no.7 and Ms. Ruby Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for State Bank of India.

2. This Court, on earlier occasion, had passed a detailed order on 23.05.2024. The said order is being reproduced below : "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Ms. Ruby Chaudhary, learned counsel for opposite party no.6/ State Bank of India and Mohd.Yasir Abbasi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to protect the award amount which has been wrongly disbursed to the opposite party no.7 and deposited the said amount in Account No. 2047405886 IFSC KKBK0005308 situated Kotak Mahindra Bank, Branch Pratapgarh in pursuance of the order dated 30.9.2023 passed by the opposite party no.3 contained in Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no.3 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Up Zila Adhikari, Kunda District-Pratapgarh to recover the amount from the Bank Account of Suman Singh in accordance with law. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties/Competent Authorities to proceed and refer the case as per the law Under Section 3 (H) (4) of the National Highway Authority of India." It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Gata Nos. 8Ka and 8 Kha situated at Village Shekhpur Anshik, Tehsil- Kunda, District Pratapgrah and Gata No.1633 situated at Village-Majhilgaon, Tehsil- Kunda,District Pratapgarh were acquired by the National Highways Authority of India and the petitioner's husband, Late Pramod Singh was one of the co-tenure owners, as per the Pedigree shown in paragraph-4 to the writ petition. Respondent no.7/ Suman Singh, wife of Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh has been wrongly given the compensation amount on the basis of an order passed in mutation proceedings dated 15.06.2013, which is already under challenge. The petitioner informed the SDM Kunda about the dispute regarding wrong recording of ownership and wrong disbursement of the awarded compensation.The competent authority/ SDM Kunda by an order dated 30.09.2023 addressed to opposite party no.7/ Suman Singh directed that the amount which has been awarded, be deposited by her in the Bank Account No. 2047405886 IFSC Code KKBK0005308 and to submit the receipt thereof in the office of the SDM, Kunda. In case of failure to do so, the authority may proceed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. Despite such letter being issued to Suman Singh, she has not deposited the money. The SDM has also written a letter to the Branch Manger, State Bank of India, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur on the same day i.e. on 30.09.2023 regarding keeping on hold Rs. 89,56,721/- in the Account No. 31766070216 IFSC Code SBIN0001786 which has been wrongly transferred in the Account of Suman Singh. However no further steps have been taken in the matter,hence this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayers. Learned Standing Counsel shall seek instructions from opposite party no.3 with regard to compliance of his own order dated 30.09.2023. Learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India shall also find out as to whether the order passed by the SDM keeping on hold Rs. 89,56,721/- as aforesaid has been complied with. List in the next week, as fresh. When the case is listed next, name of Sri Mohd.Yasir Abbasi be shown in the cause list as counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India."

3. An application for vacation of interim order along with counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.7 on 13.08.2024, in which the respondent No.7 has made a specific averment regarding forging of documents by the petitioners, namely orders dated 22.11.1979 and 01.08.1980 allegedly passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kunda, Pratapgarh in an alleged proceeding under Section 9 (A) (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

4. It is the case of respondent No.7 that no such case was ever filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Singh nor any such alleged compromise was ever filed in the said case by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.7, as alleged. The respondent No.7 has applied for certified copies of the alleged orders dated 22.11.1979 and 01.08.1980 but the revenue authorities of district Pratapgarh has certified that in the Misilband Register shows that the alleged case was not filed and therefore, there is no record relating to the same in the record room. A photo copy of the report of the Revenue Recordkeeper of Kunda Pratapgarh has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for time to file a rejoinder affidavit.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of misrepresentation and on the ground of forging documents. It has been submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by this Court not only Rs.89 lacs and odd which was received by the respondent no.7 as compensation has been put on hold by the bank, the entire saving account of the petitioners has been put on debit freeze by the bank authority.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 has placed reliance upon the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent no. 7 wherein it has been stated that the petitioners had placed their case on the basis of an order of mutation passed by the Nayab Tehsildar Kunda, Pratapgarh on 15.06.2022 in an application under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and had stated that such order has already been challenged by the petitioners.

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7 that the name of the respondent no.7 was mutated in the revenue records in PA Form No.11 on 03.05.2023 by the Revenue Inspector. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which came to be decided on 30.08.2024 and the name of the respondent no.7 was found to be mutated correctly in the revenue records. A copy of the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar on 30.08.2024 in case No. RST/4536/2023 (Pramod Singh vs. Ramwanti Devi) has been filed along with supplementary affidavit.

9. Since there is an allegation of committing fraud on the court, by the petitioners as it has been specifically stated that no case under Section 9 (A) (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was ever filed before the consolidation authority. Issue notice to respondent no. 7 and to Shri Akhilendra Singh Rana, Son of Narendra Singh, said to be the nephew of petitioner no.1 who has sworn the affidavit and has verified that the annexures to the writ petition are true photocopies of the respective documents to show cause as to why this Court may not initiate proceedings under Section 390 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 of the IPC against them.

10. Such reply be filed by the petitioner nos.1 to 4 and by Shri Akhilendra Singh Rana, the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition individually, within two weeks from today, i.e., latest by 25.09.2024.

11. The Registry shall communicate this order individually to all the petitioners and also to Shri Akhilendra Singh Rana, the deponent, of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition forthwith.

12. List this matter on 25.09.2024.

13. The interim order is modified/clarified and the State Bank of India is directed to put on hold only Rs.89,56,721/- which was given as compensation to the respondent no.7 on debit freeze and to allow the respondent no. 7 to operate her account, if it is otherwise in order." Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite party No.7 says that he has informed Sri Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners that he has made a mention for the case to be taken up out of turn. Sri Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners nor anybody else is present on behalf of the petitioners. Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, learned counsel for the National Highways Authority of India is present. Sri Akhilendra Singh Rana has filed an affidavit in compliance of the order dated 09.09.2024, wherein he has not denied any of the facts as recorded in the said order dated 09.09.2024. He has simply stated that the husband of petitioner No.1 had died on 27.04.2024 and the petitioners were in deep mental trauma due to death of Sri Pramod Singh, therefore, as the petitioners were busy in discharging the last rites of Sri Pramod Singh, as such, the deponent was authorized by the petitioners for swearing the affidavit of the Writ Petition. Apart from it, nothing has been stated. In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, granted earlier, is discharged. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Saurabh SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, learned counsel appearing for National Highways Authority of India, Shri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for respondent no.7 and Ms. Ruby Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for State Bank of India.

2. This Court, on earlier occasion, had passed a detailed order on 23.05.2024. The said order is being reproduced below : "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Ms. Ruby Chaudhary, learned counsel for opposite party no.6/ State Bank of India and Mohd.Yasir Abbasi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties to protect the award amount which has been wrongly disbursed to the opposite party no.7 and deposited the said amount in Account No. 2047405886 IFSC KKBK0005308 situated Kotak Mahindra Bank, Branch Pratapgarh in pursuance of the order dated 30.9.2023 passed by the opposite party no.3 contained in Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no.3 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Up Zila Adhikari, Kunda District-Pratapgarh to recover the amount from the Bank Account of Suman Singh in accordance with law. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties/Competent Authorities to proceed and refer the case as per the law Under Section 3 (H) (4) of the National Highway Authority of India." It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Gata Nos. 8Ka and 8 Kha situated at Village Shekhpur Anshik, Tehsil- Kunda, District Pratapgrah and Gata No.1633 situated at Village-Majhilgaon, Tehsil- Kunda,District Pratapgarh were acquired by the National Highways Authority of India and the petitioner's husband, Late Pramod Singh was one of the co-tenure owners, as per the Pedigree shown in paragraph-4 to the writ petition. Respondent no.7/ Suman Singh, wife of Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh has been wrongly given the compensation amount on the basis of an order passed in mutation proceedings dated 15.06.2013, which is already under challenge. The petitioner informed the SDM Kunda about the dispute regarding wrong recording of ownership and wrong disbursement of the awarded compensation.The competent authority/ SDM Kunda by an order dated 30.09.2023 addressed to opposite party no.7/ Suman Singh directed that the amount which has been awarded, be deposited by her in the Bank Account No. 2047405886 IFSC Code KKBK0005308 and to submit the receipt thereof in the office of the SDM, Kunda. In case of failure to do so, the authority may proceed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. Despite such letter being issued to Suman Singh, she has not deposited the money. The SDM has also written a letter to the Branch Manger, State Bank of India, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur on the same day i.e. on 30.09.2023 regarding keeping on hold Rs. 89,56,721/- in the Account No. 31766070216 IFSC Code SBIN0001786 which has been wrongly transferred in the Account of Suman Singh. However no further steps have been taken in the matter,hence this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayers. Learned Standing Counsel shall seek instructions from opposite party no.3 with regard to compliance of his own order dated 30.09.2023. Learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India shall also find out as to whether the order passed by the SDM keeping on hold Rs. 89,56,721/- as aforesaid has been complied with. List in the next week, as fresh. When the case is listed next, name of Sri Mohd.Yasir Abbasi be shown in the cause list as counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India."

3. An application for vacation of interim order along with counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.7 on 13.08.2024, in which the respondent No.7 has made a specific averment regarding forging of documents by the petitioners, namely orders dated 22.11.1979 and 01.08.1980 allegedly passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kunda, Pratapgarh in an alleged proceeding under Section 9 (A) (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

4. It is the case of respondent No.7 that no such case was ever filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Singh nor any such alleged compromise was ever filed in the said case by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.7, as alleged. The respondent No.7 has applied for certified copies of the alleged orders dated 22.11.1979 and 01.08.1980 but the revenue authorities of district Pratapgarh has certified that in the Misilband Register shows that the alleged case was not filed and therefore, there is no record relating to the same in the record room. A photo copy of the report of the Revenue Recordkeeper of Kunda Pratapgarh has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for time to file a rejoinder affidavit.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of misrepresentation and on the ground of forging documents. It has been submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by this Court not only Rs.89 lacs and odd which was received by the respondent no.7 as compensation has been put on hold by the bank, the entire saving account of the petitioners has been put on debit freeze by the bank authority.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.7 has placed reliance upon the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent no. 7 wherein it has been stated that the petitioners had placed their case on the basis of an order of mutation passed by the Nayab Tehsildar Kunda, Pratapgarh on 15.06.2022 in an application under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and had stated that such order has already been challenged by the petitioners.

8. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7 that the name of the respondent no.7 was mutated in the revenue records in PA Form No.11 on 03.05.2023 by the Revenue Inspector. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which came to be decided on 30.08.2024 and the name of the respondent no.7 was found to be mutated correctly in the revenue records. A copy of the order passed by the Nayab Tehsildar on 30.08.2024 in case No. RST/4536/2023 (Pramod Singh vs. Ramwanti Devi) has been filed along with supplementary affidavit.

9. Since there is an allegation of committing fraud on the court, by the petitioners as it has been specifically stated that no case under Section 9 (A) (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was ever filed before the consolidation authority. Issue notice to respondent no. 7 and to Shri Akhilendra Singh Rana, Son of Narendra Singh, said to be the nephew of petitioner no.1 who has sworn the affidavit and has verified that the annexures to the writ petition are true photocopies of the respective documents to show cause as to why this Court may not initiate proceedings under Section 390 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 of the IPC against them.

10. Such reply be filed by the petitioner nos.1 to 4 and by Shri Akhilendra Singh Rana, the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition individually, within two weeks from today, i.e., latest by 25.09.2024.

11. The Registry shall communicate this order individually to all the petitioners and also to Shri Akhilendra Singh Rana, the deponent, of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition forthwith.

12. List this matter on 25.09.2024.

13. The interim order is modified/clarified and the State Bank of India is directed to put on hold only Rs.89,56,721/- which was given as compensation to the respondent no.7 on debit freeze and to allow the respondent no. 7 to operate her account, if it is otherwise in order." Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite party No.7 says that he has informed Sri Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners that he has made a mention for the case to be taken up out of turn. Sri Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners nor anybody else is present on behalf of the petitioners. Mohd. Yasir Abbasi, learned counsel for the National Highways Authority of India is present. Sri Akhilendra Singh Rana has filed an affidavit in compliance of the order dated 09.09.2024, wherein he has not denied any of the facts as recorded in the said order dated 09.09.2024. He has simply stated that the husband of petitioner No.1 had died on 27.04.2024 and the petitioners were in deep mental trauma due to death of Sri Pramod Singh, therefore, as the petitioners were busy in discharging the last rites of Sri Pramod Singh, as such, the deponent was authorized by the petitioners for swearing the affidavit of the Writ Petition. Apart from it, nothing has been stated. In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, granted earlier, is discharged. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Saurabh SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench