Allahabad High Court
M/S Hari Om Ispat & Alloys Pvt. ... vs Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran ... on 3 May, 2016
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Shamsher Bahadur Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9510 of 2000
Petitioner :- Bharat Varshiya National Association
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Gupta,Mohit Bihari Mathur
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Mohit Bihari Mathur, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
2. Petitioner claims to be tenant over the property in dispute and is challenging government order dated 01.12.1998 whereby provisions have been made to convert free hold right upon lessee or occupiers of nazool land.
3. State being owner of land in question, is free to deal with the land in the manner it likes. It is not the case of petitioner that any steps have been taken by owner of land for their eviction without following procedure prescribed in law. Petitioner, even if occupying land as tenant, enjoying lease rights, cannot restrain owner of land from dealing its property in the manner it likes.
4. We therefore, find no legal right or locus of petitioner to challenge government order dated 01.12.1998.
5. Further a mandamus is sought by petitioner to restrain Government from making land in dispute, free hold. It cannot be granted for the reason that despite repeated query learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any legal right vested in it or a corresponding statutory obligation upon respondent-State not act in such manner.
6. A writ of mandamus would not lie unless the petitioner has a statutory right and corresponding statutory obligation upon respondents. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another, (2008) 2 SCC 280 the Apex court after referring to its earlier judgements in Bihar Eastern Gangetic fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 145; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalwani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334 and Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar, 1973 (1) SCC 485, observed as under:
"There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and officer exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance........"
7. In view of above, the writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 3.5.2016
Pravin
