PURUSHOTTAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been presented by Purushottam chandra who was elected as a member of the Municipal Board of Ghaziabad on 1-11-1953.

(2.) IT appears that some land within the limits of the Municipal Board of Ghaziabad was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the development schemes of the municipal board by a notification issued in the U. P. Gazette on 10-7-1947. On part of this land, the petitioner started constructions which he called a 'dharamshala'. These constructions were started without complying with the provisions of S. 178, U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. A statement about compensation payable to the owners of the land was prepared and sent with a report by the Land acquisition Officer to the Collector. That report is dated 14-10-1952. The report mentions that, on this land, a building known as Dharamshala, constructed by the petitioner, was standing. The officer, sending the report, was of the opinion that since the constructions were made after the notification relating to acquisition of land, the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation in respect of this building. It was, however, suggested that it may not be necessary to have the building removed and the building may be taken over without payment of any compensation whatsoever. It was stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that this recommendation in the report was accepted fay the Collector and was made a part of the award. Even subsequently, the petitioner obtained a permit for 200 bags of cement from the Planning Officer on 2-1-1953. There were thereafter some reports to the authorities and to the Government, as a result of which, on 27-12-1953, this site was inspected by Shri D. N. Tandon, Deputy Collector posted at ghaziabad, who gave a report that the work on this 'dharamshala' had been started again from 23-11-1953. At the time when he went for inspection, he found that the building had already been constructed and the labourers were plastering the floor and roof of the building. Thereafter, on 27-4-1954, a charge, which was communicated to the District Magistrate of meerut by the Assistant Secretary to Government, U. P. Municipal Department, was served on the petitioner by the District Magistrate. The charge was that

(3.) THE first point, that has to be noticed, is that prayer No. 4 in the petition cannot be granted to the petitioner as the persons sought to be restrained from functioning as Vice-President, chairman and Members of the committees, have not been impleaded as opposite parties in the petition. Obviously, no writ or direction can issue to them without impleading them as opposite parties to this petition. Therefore, so far as this prayer is concerned it need not be considered on merits at all.