Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 22 September, 2015
Bench: Arun Tandon, Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54360 of 2015
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh,A.K.S. Parihar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners had approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 15552 of 2010 alleging therein that the respondent authorities may be directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of Plot No. 451/1 measuring 6 bigha situate at Barra-3, kanpur Nagar at the existing market value along with interest.
The Division Bench of this Court noticed that no material has been brought to suggest that the land has ever been acquired and the Kanpur Development Authority in its counter affidavit also categorically stated that the land has never been acquired nor any construction was raised on it. Following observations were made by this Court :
" No material has been brought on record of the writ petition to demonstrate that the land in dispute was subject matter of acquisition proceedings. The KDA, in its counter affidavit has categorically stated that the land was never acquired and neither they are in possession nor they are raising any constructions. Even if it is presumed, for the sake of argument, that the petitioners have been illegally dispossessed by the KDA during the pendency of the civil suit from over the plot in dispute, it was always open to them to have amended the pleadings and sought appropriate relief in the suit itself for restoration of possession. Further, in case, the petitioners have been dispossessed illegally after the suit was decreed, it is open to them to approach the trial court alleging violation of the decree of permanent injunction granted in their favour."
After recording the said facts the writ petition was dismissed.
The petitioners by means of this second petition seek a mandamus directing the respondents no.2 and 3 to demarcate/allocate the plot no. 451/1 and hand over its possession to the petitioners. Further prayer has been made to conduct an impartial enquiry against respondent no.3-District Magistrate in the matter.
In our opinion, this petition is a manifest abuse of process of this Court. The petitioners earlier tried to suggest before this Court that their land had been illegally possessed by the Kanpur Development Authority and, therefore, they must be paid compensation. Having failed in that attempt, petitioners have now come up with the prayer that their land be identified and possession be delivered to the petitioners.
If the petitioners were not aware of their land holding and were not in actual possession of their land at any point of time, however, and even otherwise we see no reason to grant any relief, which has been prayed for in the present petition.
It appears that petitioners are not aware about the exact location of their plot and are also not in possession over it.
We hardly find any good ground to entertain this second petition for the relief sought herein.
The writ petition being misconceived is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2015
Ashish Pd.
