Rama Ram And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 1641 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R. 
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18321 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Rama Ram And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- O.P. Pandey,Narendra Kumar
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh,J.

Heard Sri O.P.Pandey along with Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha.

Through this writ petition quashing of the orders dated 17.7.2012, 18.7.2012 and 16.11.2012 passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 have been sought for.  On 4.4.2013 this Court has passed the following order:

"On 17.7.2012 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Azamgarh, has passed an order for eviction of the petitioners with further rider that in case they do not vacate the premises proceeding will be initiated for their dispossession. Pursuant thereto another order was passed on 18.7.2012 by the Tehsildar for compliance of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Challenging this order the petitioners had approached this Court through Writ Petition No. 40868 of 2012 (Rama Ram and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) This Court took a view that there is no likelihood of petitioners eviction immediately as only proceedings is to be initiated against them. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy available to them in law for establishing their right.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste community and are entitled to get the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the Act). Their names are liable to be recorded as Bhumidhar in the revenue record. Pending petitioners' application seeking declaration the order impugned has been passed by the same Sub Divisional Officer for recording the land as Community Visiting Center.

The question is as to whether the land is to be settled with the petitioners in view of the provisions of Section 122B (4F) of the Act or not and secondly as to whether the order impugned can be passed circumventing the petitioners' statutory right under section 122B(4F) of the Act.

Learned standing counsel is directed to seek instruction and produce complete record of the case by the next date fixed. The Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Lalganj, District Azamgarh is directed to remain present before the Court on the date fixed with a view to assist the learned standing counsel."

The crux of the dispute has already been noticed by this Court  as  mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order dated 4.4.2013. The Sub Divisional Officer was required to produce the record and explain his conduct. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State informs that prior to filing of the writ petition the petitioners have filed Revision No. 247/A of 2013 (Vijai Ram vs. State of U.P. and others) challenging the impugned order. Learned standing counsel not only showed the photostat copy of the revision filed by the petitioners but he has also shown the requisition letter issued by the office of the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh summoning the record of the court, which have been brought on record of the writ petition.  Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he may be granted time to ascertain as to whether the revision has been filed or not. I do not find any ground to disbelieve the papers produced by the learned standing counsel.

Rule 3(i) of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (in short the Rules)  requires the person, who is knocking the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, to give declaration as to whether previously this Court has been approached by him or not and further if there is any  related proceeding pending elsewhere, the full details thereof. Sri O.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners interpreted the aforementioned rule by submitting that  the petitioners may have filed a revision against the impugned order  before the Commissioner but  here declaration is to be given only with regard to the remedy sought before this Court may be writ petition, appeal revision, review etc.  for the same cause of action and not the remedy availed else where.

For appreciating the controversy it would be useful to go through the language used in sub-rule (3)of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules which reads as under:

"(3)(i) The petitioner(s) shall categorically state in the opening paragraph of the application, affidavit, petition etc. that no writ, petition, application, including review application etc. or any other proceedings arising from or related to the impugned order or the relief sought before this Court has been filed or is pending to the best of his knowledge for this Court, at Allahabad or Lucknow or any other Court/Authority Tribunal etc. 

(ii) If there is any related proceeding pending elsewhere, the full details thereof shall be mentioned.

(iii) In continuation, in a subsequent paragraph a categorical statement shall be made by the petitioner(s), applicant(s) etc. to indicate whether petitioner(s) applicant(s) etc. have received or not received notice, information or copy of any caveat application by Registered Post or otherwise from any of the opposite parties or from any other source.

(iv) Any substantial omission or misstatement in the above regard shall render the application liable to be dismissed summarily."

From the bare reading of sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, it would transpire that the person approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to state that no writ, petition, application, including review application etc. or any other proceedings arising from or related to the impugned order or the relief sought before this Court has been filed or is pending to the best of his knowledge for this Court, at Allahabad or Lucknow or any other Court/Authority Tribunal etc.  The language used in the aforesaid rules is unambiguous and clear. This rule not only requires the petitioners to disclose the pendency of the proceedings relating to the impugned order before this Court but it also requires to disclose the proceeding relating to the impugned order before any other court/authority Tribunal. 

Here in this case as per submission of the learned standing counsel the petitioners has already filed revision on 23.1.2013 before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and the present writ petition has been filed on 31st March, 2013 after two months of filing of the revision.  The petitioners have not disclosed the same. Therefore, in view of the language used in sub-rule (3)(iv) of Rule 1, writ petition is liable to be dismissed summarily. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are only required to disclose the proceeding pending or availed before this Court is misconceived.

Otherwise also the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable jurisdiction and it is well settled that the person seeking equitable jurisdiction of  this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands,clean mind and clean heart. In case some body is approaching this Court by suppressing the material fact the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be permitted to be availed. Therefore, I refuse to entertain the writ petition for both the reasons, firstly, by not making declaration as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Chapter XXII of the Rules and secondly not approaching this Court with clean hands.

The writ petition is dismissed.

However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the Divisional Commissioner, Azamgarh is directed to decide the petitioners' revision expeditiously  keeping in mind the urgency of the matter and the pendency of the cases of the previous years pending before his court and looking into the question formulated by this Court in the order dated 4.4.2013. The petitioners are at liberty to file an application for interim protection  in the revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Azamgarh. Since this order has been passed  refusing the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to verify the records which have been placed before this Court by the learned standing counsel, it is provided that in case the papers shown by the learned standing counsel are found to be false the petitioners will be at  liberty to file an application seeking recall of this order.

Order Date :- 3.5.2013

samz