text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
The High Court acquitted Pathan Khadar Basha,the fatherin-law of the deceased,as there was no direct evidence against him Ratio |
His acquittal has not been challenged by the State before us,thus,we are not called upon to discuss this aspect of the matter Ratio |
Accused Pathan Hussain Basha and Pathan Nazeer Abi have rightly been found guilty of the offence by the courts Ratio |
While we see no reason to differ with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court,we do see some substance in the argument raised on behalf of the appellants that keeping in view the prosecution evidence,the attendant circumstances,the age of the accused and the fact that they have already be... |
The offences having been proved against the accused and keeping in view the attendant circumstances,we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met,if the punishment awarded to the appellants is reduced Ratio |
Consequently,we award ten years Rigorous Imprisonment to the appellants RPC |
The appeals are partially accepted to the extent afore-indicated RPC |
Appeals partly allowed RPC |
In these appeals the dispute relates to payment of compensation pursuant to acquisition of land of respondent-M/s FAC |
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the "Company") and auction of part of the land of the Company FAC |
There being cross-claims,all of these appeals were heard together for determination by a common judgment FAC |
The Company preferred two writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the District Magistrate/Collector,Meerut and Board of Revenue dated 18th December,1995 and 3rd August,1996 respectively FAC |
The aforesaid orders were also challenged by the State Government FAC |
The writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court by a common judgment dated 1st FAC |
March,2011.By the said judgment,the High Court directed the State Government to pay the Company the compensation on the basis of the compromise reached between the State Government and the tenure holder Company for acquisition of their land by Meerut Development Authority FAC |
It is also directed that out of compensation paid by the Meerut Development Authority (about Rs.4.33 crores) an amount of Rs.1.62 crores shall be deducted and the remaining amount shall be paid to the Company FAC |
The State has been given liberty to realize the said amount from those authorities to whom it was wrongly paid by the previous Collector,Tulsi Gaur,under his order dated 20th FAC |
February,1992.The impugned judgment dated 1st March,2011 has been challenged by the State of U.P.in C.A.Nos.6169-6171 of 2013 (State of U.P.& ors FAC |
Vs FAC |
M/s FAC |
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd FAC |
Ors.etc.),as also by M/s FAC |
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd.in C.A.Nos.6172-6174 of 2013 FAC |
Ors.(M/s FAC |
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd.vs FAC |
The Colletor/District Magistrate & Ors FAC |
A piece of land of the Company was put to auction for recovery of dues of the Company FAC |
It was challenged by the Company by filing a writ petition FAC |
The High Court by impugned judgment dated 27th April,2001 cancelled the auction sale and allowed the writ petition FAC |
In a review application preferred by auction purchaser,the High Court by order dated 3rd September,2001 directed the respondents to refund the amount to the auction purchasers FAC |
The aforesaid judgment and orders are under challenge in C.A.Nos.7122 of 2003,7123-7124 of 2003,7125 of 2003 and 7126-7129 of 2003 FAC |
C.A.Nos.6169-6171 of 2013 and C.A.Nos.6172-6174 of 2013 FAC |
For determination of the issue involved in C.A.Nos.6169-6171 of 2013 and C.A.Nos.6172-6174 of 2013,it is desirable to refer the relevant factual matrix of the case which is as follows FAC |
The proprietors of respondent Company,namely M/s FAC |
Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd.had six business units as under: M/s FAC |
Jaswant Sugar Mills RLC |
Meerut Straw Board Mills FAC |
Pootha Farm FAC |
Northern India Paper Mills FAC |
Bindal Vanaspati Ghee Mills FAC |
Meduwala Open Pan Sugar,Bijnor FAC |
The Company was in heavy arrears as on 3rd January,1977 to the extent of Rs.1.14 crores FAC |
Accordingly,the District Collector,Meerut appointed a Receiver under Section 286-A of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,(hereinafter referred to as the "Zamindari Abolition Act FAC |
Subsequently,the Company was acquired by the State on 28th October,1984 FAC |
as per provisions of the U.P.State Sugar Undertakings Acquisition Act,1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Acquisition Act,1971"),as amended in the year 1984,free from all encumbrances and the said Unit was vested with the U.P.State Sugar Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation FAC |
Since,the Company was in arrears to the extent of Rs.1.29 crores,the District Collector,Meerut by order dated 28th November,1984,attached all the remaining five constituent units except the Sugar Mill FAC |
The General Manger of the aforesaid Sugar unit was appointed as a Receiver with reference to all the aforesaid remaining five units FAC |
In between 1977 to 1984,for smooth functioning of the Sugar Mill,payment of dues to sugarcane grower,repairing of machinery etc.,on the request of the Receiver,the State Government granted loan of Rs.6.13 crores to the Company,and was to be recovered as the arrears of Land Revenue along with interest FAC |
The District Collector,Meerut taking into consideration the dues to the extent of Rs.1.62 crores as on 24th October,1990 were to be paid by the Company,extended the tenure of the Receiver till further orders FAC |
The order of the extension of tenure of the Receiver was challenged by the ex-proprietors of the Company in a Writ Petition No.18496/1991.Subsequently,the Receiver was withdrawn on 18th December,1995,therefore,the writ petition was also withdrawn FAC |
Pursuant to "Uttar Pradesh imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act" (hereinafter referred to as the "Ceiling Act"),land admeasuring 723.3 bigha belonging to the Company was declared surplus FAC |
Against the same a Writ Petition No.3905/1987 was preferred by the Company FAC |
During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition the State Government issued a Notification dated 14th August,1987 u/s.4 read with S.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 for the Meerut Development Authority FAC |
It was followed by a Notification dated 4th September,1987 issued u/s 6 of the Acquisition Act FAC |
The said Notification included the land of M/s Pootha Farm,a constituent unit of the Company FAC |
In the said case compensation amount of Rs.4.33 crores was awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 22nd February,1990 FAC |
The District Collector,Meerut,pursuant to a report of the Tehsildar,ordered to pay the compensation amount after adjustment of different dues payable by the Company.11.Pursuant to a Court's order,the District Collector,Meerut passed a speaking order dated 20th February,1992 showing the details of adjustments to be made... |
The District Collector in the said order dated 20th February,1992 concluded that after such adjustment the following dues were still to be paid by the Company FAC |
The State Government filed the deduction statement for recovery of the dues before the prescribed authority constituted under U.P.Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act,1971.However,the aforesaid claim was rejected by the prescribed authority by order dated 4th October,1994 in Claim No.13 of 1999 FAC |
Against the said order dated 4th October,1994 passed by the prescribed authority,the appellant filed Appeal No.1/95 before the Appellate Tribunal FAC |
By order dated 12th October,1995,the Appellate Tribunal directed the appellant to file a fresh deduction claim before the prescribed authority FAC |
The Company moved an application before the District Collector,Meerut stating therein that as on date there are no arrears/liability payable by the Company,therefore,requested to remove the Receiver FAC |
The District Collector,Meerut by order dated 18th December,1995,allowed the case No.30/1995 with observation that as on the date no recovery certificate was pending against the Company FAC |
Hence,the appointment of Receiver was terminated with immediate effect FAC |
It was further ordered that a detailed list of the assets be prepared and signed by both the parties and the assets be transferred to the Company FAC |
An order was passed to appoint a Chartered Accountant to complete the audit of the accounts FAC |
As the order dated 18th December,1995,passed by the District Collector,Meerut is silent about the amount payable to the Company,the Ex-Proprietor of the Company moved an application before the Chairman Board of Revenue and requested to refund the compensation amount to the Company FAC |
The Company filed a Writ Petition No.10220/1996 before High Court for modification of the order of the District Collector,Meerut dated 18th December,1995 FAC |
During the pendency of the said case,the Chairman,Board of Revenue,by order dated 3rd August,1996 directed that out of the total amount of Rs.4.33 crores received as compensation from Meerut Development Authority,after deduction of a sum of Rs.1.62 crores along with interest and collection charges the balance amount sh... |
Against the aforesaid order dated 3rd August,1996 passed by the Chairman,Board of Revenue,the Company filed Writ Petition No.31378/1996 on the ground that there is no dues payable by the Company FAC |
In the said case the U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd.filed a counter affidavit refuting such stand taken by the Company FAC |
A separate counter affidavit was filed by the Deputy Secretary,Sugar and Cane Development,Lucknow,giving details of dues payable by the Company as detailed by the District Collector,Meerut by his order dated 18th December,1995 FAC |
The High Court initially passed an interim order on 17th July,1997 as under: "Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case,the respondents are directed to pay to M/s RLC |
Ltd.,Meerut the amount of compensation money amounting to Rs.4,33,94,783.40 after deducting a sum of Rs.1,62,02,402.20 + interest and collection charges within a period of two months from today RLC |
Payments so made shall be subject to final decision of the Writ Petition RLC |
Against the interim order,the appellant-State filed the Special Appeals FAC |
By judgment and order dated 7th July,2010 passed in Special Appeal Nos.5179-80/2010,the High Court quashed the interim order dated 17th July,1997 passed by the learned Single Judge FAC |
It was ordered to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously FAC |
In the meantime,the District Collector by its notice dated 22nd August,2005,directed the Company to refund certain amount FAC |
The said notice was also challenged by the Company FAC |
The High Court by judgment and order dated 23rd February,2011 quashed the notice dated 22nd August,2005 FAC |
with direction to the appellant to pay the compensation amount to the Company FAC |
However,it was clarified that if the land,which have been acquired finally,does not fall within the ceiling limit of the Company,then it will be open for the State to recover it after the finalisation of the ceiling proceedings,as per law FAC |
Subsequently,impugned common judgment and order dated 1st FAC |
March,2011 was passed in Writ Petition No.31378/1996,etc.,with observation and directions as referred to above FAC |
The grievance of the appellant-State is that the High Court while passing the impugned order has not noticed the liability incurred by the undertaking and the loan paid to the Company ARG |
According to the appellant,the aforesaid issue has not been decided ARG |
On the other hand,learned counsel for the respondents made the following submissions: (i ARG |
No amount,whatsoever,is due and payable by the Company to the State ARG |
Till date,there has not been a single determination/adjudication by any Court/Authority of any dues against the Company nor is there any claim pending before any Authority or before any Court,on date ARG |
Furthermore,the State has not been able to produce any recovery certificate of any department showing any dues against the Company ARG |
ii ARG |
The Collector has no power to adjudicate the dues under the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act and is merely a recovery agent to recover sums payable as arrears of land revenue,upon receipt of a valid Recovery Certificate ARG |
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records Ratio |
It is not in dispute that the Company was under heavy arrears as on 3rd January,1977.Therefore,the District Collector,Meerut appointed the Receiver Ratio |
Subsequently,Sugar Mill of the Company was acquired on 28th October,1984 Ratio |
under Sugar Undertakings Acquisition Act,1971 and the unit was vested with the U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ratio |
Till 28th November,1984,the Company was the owner of the units/Sugar Mill Ratio |
It was in arrears to the extent of Rs.1.29 crores Ratio |
Therefore,the District Collector,Meerut attached remaining five constituent units and the General Manager of the sugar unit was appointed as a Receiver Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.