Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Kisan Vidya Peeth Uchchatar Madyamic Vidyalay v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 20755 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7634 (25 April 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon.Dr.B.S.Chauhan, J.

Hon.Rajes Kumar, J.

In this petition and in the connected petitions, land acquisition proceedings have been challenged on large number of grounds. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that the petition is premature as no declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as "Act") has yet been issued, therefore, entertaining this petition and adjudicating the issues raised by the petitioners in all the petitions may be a futile exercise if declaration under Section 6 is not issued at all. The Court is not supposed to decide academic issues. Therefore the petitioners should not be permitted to argue till declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 is issued by the respondents.

A similar issue had been agitated before this Court in Writ Petition No.37591 of 2005 (Smt. Puspa Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), and vide order dated 90/5/2005, the said writ petition was dismissed being premature. On 13/3/2007 a bunch of identical writ petition was argued by the same counsel wherein the leading writ petition was Writ Petition No.13440 of 2007 (Smt. Deoki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) and a similar view has been reiterated observing that Section 4 notification under the Act,  can be challenged on a very limited ground as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.M.T. Ltd & Anr. Vs. Mudappa & Ors., 2007 AIR SCW 1058 and Daulat Singh Surana & Ors. Vs. First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., (2007) 1 SCC 641 and petitions have been dismissed being premature.

Judicial discipline and decorum requires us to follow the judgment of the co-ordinate benches. It is not disputed that the issues involved herein are identical to that of Smt. Deoki (Supra) as no distinction could be pointed out to us. A different view is not permissible. Thus the petitions stand dismissed as premature.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate the issue, if he feel so aggrieved, after declaration 6 of the Act, is made.

Sri Shashi Kant and Learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.