Allahabad High Court
Shailendra Srivastava vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad ... on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Rajan Roy, Ravi Nath Tilhari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 14440 of 2017
Petitioner :- Shailendra Srivastava
Respondent :- U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Commissioner & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shamshad Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- Mahesh Chandra,Moti Lal Yadav,Shailendra Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
1. Heard Sri Shamsahd Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Moti Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Lucknow Development Authority.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the rights of his forefathers in respect of Khasra No. 127 measuring 8 Biswa 4 Biswansi i.e. 3200 Square Fit situated at Village Zafarpur alias Ruknuddipur, Ward Hardeen Ram Nagar, Rajajipuram, Police Station Old Saadatganj, Lucknow were settled by the Civil Court vide its judgment and decree dated 08.03.2016 passed in Original Suit No. 406/2008, wherein the petitioner was subsequently substituted as plaintiff No. 1/1, after the death of the original plaintiff, who was his father. The Nagar Nigam, Lucknow and Executive Engineer, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad were also defendants in the said suit. He says that the opposite party No.6 had filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing No.22042 (MB) of 2016, wherein an order was passed for fencing of the Park on the claim that it was being encroached.
3. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the petitioner's land, aforesaid, is concerned, the rights have been perfected by a decree of the court, which has not been challenged by the defendant in the suit. Therefore, order dated 15.09.2016 does not affect his rights. He says that the petitioner or his father was not even a party in the said writ petition filed by opposite party No.6. He also informs that execution proceedings for execution of judgment and decree dated 08.03.2016, referred herein-above, have also been initiated, which are pending. He, however, says that some tender has been issued by the Nagar Nigam for construction of the Park in question and in the garb of the said tender, the Nagar Nigam is trying to encroach upon the land of the petitioner.
4. Sri Moti Lal Yadav, learned counsel has filed an application for impleadment of one Devesh Kumar Verma as an opposite party in the writ petition, as the opposite party No.6, herein, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh is no more, as informed by him. The applicant seeking impleadment is said to be an Advocate. We fail to understand as to what right, the said applicant would have so far as the land measuring 8 Biswa 4 Biswansi, referred herein-above pertaining to Khasra No. 127 is concerned, in respect to which the petitioner claims to have a Judgment and decree of the civil court in his favour, as he does not appear to have been a defendant in the said proceedings.
5. We are of the considered opinion, that as execution proceedings have already been initiated by the petitioner for execution of the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2016, referred herein-above, the petitioner should pursue the same as the said proceedings are sufficient for protecting his rights. As regard his contention that the tender issued by the Nagar Nigam is illegal, we find from the record that there is no such prayer challenging the tender in this writ petition. Therefore, we dispose of this petition with the aforesaid observations, however, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the tender allegedly issued by the Nagar Nigam, if he has a cause and locus in the matter.
6. Application for impleadment filed by Sri Devesh Kumar Verma is also disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Order Date :- 22.7.2021
Arvind
