Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. & 5 Others on 19 August, 2015
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Mukhtar Ahmad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46536 of 2015
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.N. Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Mukhtar Ahmad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The facts of the case is that one Husain Shah executed a rent deed and transferred the disputed shop to the petitioner on 27.3.2008, averring therein that petitioner was doing business since 2005-06. Pursuant to the order dated 10.12.2009, the name of the respondent no. 6 was mutated. Petitioner has filed Misc. Suit being No. 32 of 2011 claiming disputed rent. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the said suit passed order on 21.9.2013 which reads thus-
iqdkjk x;kA oknh dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i= 15x2 izLrqr fd;k x;kA Lohd`rA vkosnd vius fjLd ij fdjk;k tek dj ldrk gSA
i=koyh fnukad 21-12-2013 dks okLrs vkifRr fuxjkuh is'k gksA
It further appears that application bearng No. 1041, filed by the petitioner for transfer of tenancy right was dismissed on 10.12.2009 by the Executive Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jalaun and his decision was communicated to the petitioner on 6.1.2010. Petitioner has challenged that order by filing appeal bearing No. 1 to 2010 before the District Magistrate, Orai which was dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2014, holding thus-
esjs }kjk mHk;i{k ds fo+}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksZ dks lquk x;k rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa dk Hkyh izdkj voyksdu fd;k x;kA uxj ikfydk ifj"kn dh ukekUrj.k i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA voyksdu djus ls Li"V gS fd fnukad 07-12-2009 dks gqlSu 'kkg }kjk ,d izkFkZuk i= Jh vjfoUn dqekj flag dks viuk lk>snkj crkrs gq, muds i{k esa nqdku dk ukekUrj.k djus gsrq izkFkZuk i= fn;k x;kA ftl ij uxj ikfydk ifj"kn }kjk tkap djkdj mDr nqdku dk ukekUrj.k vjfoUn dqekj flag ds i{k esa dj fn;k x;k gSA Jh gqlSu 'kkg ds izkFkZuk i= ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd ;g IykV muds }kjk uhykeh ds }kjk izkIr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ds voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS fd ;g IykV rugk gqlSu 'kkg ds uke ls gh uhyke gqvk FkkA ckn es gqlSu'kkg }kjk dfFkr :i ls vjfoUn dqekj dks viuk lk>snkj crk;k x;k gS ftldk dksbZ lk{; uxj ikfydk ifj"kn dh i=koyh ij miyC/k ugh gSA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd tc dksbZ [email protected] IykV uhykeh izfdz;k ds rgr fdlh O;fDr dks fn;k x;k Fkk rc og lEifRr iqu% fdlh O;fDr ds uke vafdr djus ls iwoZ uxj ikfydk ifj"kn dks pkfg, Fkk fd nqdku dh [kqyh uhykeh iwjh ikjnf'kZrk ,oa fu"i{krk ds lkFk lekpkj i= esa foKkiu fudyokdj djrs rkfd uxj ikfydk ifj"kn dks nqdku dh uhykeh lcls vf/kd cksyh cksyus okys O;fDr ds i{k esa djrs rkfd uxj ikfydk ifj"kn dks vf/kd ls vf/kd vk; gksrhA iz'uxr izdj.k esa uxj ikfydk ifj"kn }kjk ,d gh O;fDr ds izkFkZuk i= ij ukekUrj.k dk;Zokgh dh x;h gS tks =qfViw.kZ gSA
mi;qZDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij uxj ikfydk ifj"kn tkykSu }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 10-12-2009 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa uxj ikfydk ifj"kn tkykSu dh ukekUrj.k i=koyh bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izfr izsf"kr dh tkrh gS fd mDr izdj.k esa fu;ekuqlkj foKkiu vkfn dh dk;Zokgh djrs gq, u;s fljs ls dk;Zokgh djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA vihydrkZ dh vihy mDr lhek rd Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA vkns'k dh ,d izfr lfgr uxj ikfydk ifj"kn tkykSu dh ukekUrj.k i=koyh izsf"kr dh tk;s okn vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky nQrj dh tk;sA
fnukad tuojh 23]2014
g0 viBuh;
¼jke x.ks'k½
ftyk eftLVªsV] tkykSu
LFkku mjbZA
vkns'k ;g vkns'k esjs }kjk gLrk{kfjr ,oa fnukaafdr dj [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA
fnukad% tuojh 23]2014
g0 viBuh;
¼jke x.ks'k½
ftyk eftLVªsV] tkykSu
LFkku mjbZA
Aggrieved by the aforesaid, respondent No. 6, Arvind Kumar Singh Yadav in whose name plot has been allotted has filed writ petition before this Court bearing No. 48851 of 2014 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23.3.2015, appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The order passed by this Court in the writ petition, referred above reads thus-
"1. It is admitted that shop in question was never auctioned by Nagar Palika Parishad in favour of petitioner. That being so, petitioner has no right to claim transfer of tenancy rights of shop in question in his favour.
2. In these facts and circumstances and the admitted position, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed."
A perusal of the order passed by this Court shows that petitioner has no right to claim transfer of tenancy right of the shop which was never auctioned by the Nagar Palika Parishad in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is now aggrieved by the advertisement dated 1.8.2015, appended as Annexure-10 to the writ petition whereby plot in question is being auctioned by the Nagar Palika Parishad.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that from the record itself, it is apparent that shop in question was never auctioned in favour of the petitioner and he has no right over the same as has been held by this court in Writ Petition No. 48851 of 2014.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that grievance of the petitioner has been considered by this Court in the Writ Petition No. 48851 of 2014 (Arvind Kumar Singh Yadav Vs.State of U.P. and others) and the Court has found that the shop in question was never auctioned by the Nagar Palika Parishad in favour of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner in this petition cannot claim any right of transfer of tenancy right. Once the claim of partner has already been rejected by this Court, virtually this is second writ petition for the same cause of action. As the claim of the petitioner has attained finality in Writ Petition No. 48851 of 2014, we are of the view that this petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.8.2015
M.A.Ansari
