Allahabad High Court
Cap.Inder Bir Singh Uppal vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 21 June, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9368 of 2021
Petitioner :- Cap.Inder Bir Singh Uppal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs and are quoted herein for ready reference:
"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directed to the respondent no. 1 to remitted back the possession as well as title of the land in question to its owner.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent no. 1 and 2 to consider and passed appropriate order on the representation dated 12/10/2020 and 19/02/2021 submitted by the petitioner expeditiously within a suitable period."
Learned counsel for the respondent has raised objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. It is mainly on the ground that many writ petitions were filed earlier but has not been disclosed in this petition. It is even otherwise that earlier a writ petition was dismissed with regard to the same reliefs, thus operate as res-judicata on this petition. To substantiate the argument, learned counsel for the respondent has given reference to the order dated 26.6.2020 passed in writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 10496 of 2020. The writ petition was dismissed finding it to be misconceived in reference to the similar objection. The counsel for the respondents has given reference of other petitions also. The prayer is to dismiss the writ petition with cost.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition is maintainable. It is stated that while filing this petition, necessary disclosure about earlier writ was made in para one itself showing it to be the second writ petition. The prayer is accordingly not to dismiss the petition on the objection raised by the counsel for the respondents.
It is submitted that though the land of the petitioner was acquired but without passing an order on objection under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thus a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner. A reference of the judgment dated 20.5.2002 on the said writ petition has been given. The copy of the judgment in the said writ petition has been filed at Annexure 4 to this writ petition. It is further submitted that pursuant to the direction given therein, the petitioner made a representation but was not properly considered and thereby rejected. The petitioner then preferred Writ Petition No. 21364 of 2004, wherein this Court passed an interim order but later on dismissed in default. The fact aforesaid has been mentioned in para 18 of the writ petition. The petitioner did not file an application for its restoration looking to the fact that the land so acquired was not utilized and thereby Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (In short "Act of 1973"), became applicable. The petitioner accordingly made representation for restoration of land in his favour. The land in dispute is still lying vacant on account of non-utilization by the builder to whom allotment was made. Prayer is accordingly to issue direction to the respondents to restore the possession of the land back to the petitioner in the light of Section 17 of the Act of 1973 and with the aforesaid direction writ petition may be allowed.
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
We would first consider on the conduct of the petitioner. He is guilty of suppression of true facts from the Court. In first para of the petition, present petition is shown to be second petition but it is without giving details of that writ petition. We further find that petition was filed not only in the year 2002 but even in 2004 as per the pleading made in the writ petition. The writ petition bearing No. 20783 of 2002 was disposed of by the judgment dated 20.5.2002. The subsequent Writ Petition No. 21364 of 2004 was dismissed in default on 31.5.2016 thereby it makes two writ petitions earlier to the present one.
The fact further is that even after two earlier petitions, one writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 10496 of 2020 was filed. It has not been disclosed in the present writ petition though required. It is more so when the writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 26.6.2020. The fact aforesaid shows that there were three writ petitions earlier than the present one while petitioner has disclosed about one writ petition. The fact further is that the writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 10496 of 2020 was dismissed by the Court on the issue of maintainability. The order dated 26.6.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 10496 of 2020 is quoted herein:
"1. Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned Advocate for respondent no.4 raises an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition with the statement that the previous writ petition being Writ-C No. 10275 of 2020 seeking same relief has already been dismissed by by this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.06.2020. There is no dispute to the said fact.
2. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed."
The facts pertaining to this petition have been suppressed by this Court rather reference of filing of the petition preferred in the year 2020 has not been given. It shows the conduct of the petitioner to suppress the material fact. During the course of argument also learned counsel for the petitioner was informed about it but ignorance was shown. Such a conduct of the petitioner cannot be accepted rather it invites prosecution for not tendering proper declaration while filing the affidavit. The issue raised herein was an issue in the earlier writ petitions also.
In light of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is not maintainable not only for the reason that after dismissal of the writ petition in the year 2020, this writ petition was not maintainable. It is even for the reason that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Allahabad High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one month from today. The compliance of this order would be ensured by the Registrar (Listing) and in case the cost is not deposited, within a period mentioned above, the matter would be listed before this Court for initiation of contempt proceedings.
Order Date :- 21.6.2021
VMA
