Allahabad High Court
Ram Viyog vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17454 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ram Viyog
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Chaube,Snehil
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Achal Singh,Ram Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Om Prakash Chaube, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Achal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5.
The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to not interfere in the possession of the petitioner over land bearing Gata no. 3283/1 area 0.263 hectares, Gata no. 3284 area 0.105 hectares and Gata no. 3285 area 0.044 hectares till final disposal of the Case no. 3/5/2 of 2001 (State of U.P. vs. Radhey Shyam Mauza Udaypur Pargana Naraini District Banda) under Section 202 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.
Upon the matter being taken up by a coordinate Bench of this Court, on 10.8.2022, the following order was passed:-
"The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question was subject matter of suit filed by Gaon Sabha under Section 202 of the erstwhile U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, which has came to be dismissed on 03.09.1989 and instead of filing any appeal against the said judgment and decree, the State instituted another suit in the year 2001 under Section 202 of the erstwhile U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 which was too decreed by means of a very cryptic order passed on 03.11.2001 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and consequently petitioner filed a restoration application upon which the ex parte judgment and decree has been set aside vide order dated 09.04.2002 and matter is still sub judice before the revenue Court and in spite of fact that plot no. 3285 with an area 0.044 hectare is in issue in the pending suit, the Sub Divisional Officer has permitted another private party to raise construction over the same plot and the same area. It is next argued that the Sub Divisional Officer is not entitled to pass any such administrative order as has come to be passed on 17.05.2022. It is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that once the matter is sub judice before the revenue court, the Tehsildar, Atarra was not justified in recommending the other two plots bearing no. 3283/1 and 3284 to be reserved as play ground.
From the perusal of pleadings as have been brought on record and the order impugned passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Atarra it smells foul play at the end of an administrative officer.
Let the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Atarra, District Banda file his personal affidavit as to why and under what circumstances he has come to pass order on 17.05.2022. He will explain his conduct in the matter of exercising such administrative power with regard to construction activity by a third party in respect of plot in question which is in issue in revenue suit pending before the competent authority who also happens to be the Sub Divisional Officer, Atarra, failing which he shall appear in person before this Court on the next date fixed.
List on 29.08.2022."
The matter was adjourned on 29.8.2022 upon request made by the counsel appearing for the State respondents. Thereafter, on 5.9.2022, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Atarra, District Banda was directed to remain present before the Court on the next date fixed i.e. 8.9.2022. On the said date the matter was adjourned fixing 12.9.2022.
Pursuant to the aforestated orders, the incumbent holding office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Atarra, District Banda is present before the Court today.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has filed a personal affidavit of the respondent no.3 wherein unconditional and unqualified apology has been tendered.
In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the affidavit it has been pointed out that upon an application filed by the petitioner dated 21.5.2022 proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were drawn and an order was passed issuing a direction to the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the land bearing Gata no. 3283/1 area 0.263 hectares, Gata no. 3284 area 0.105 hectares and Gata no. 3285 area 0.044 hectares. It is submitted that the aforestated order was passed in exercise of powers under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in Misc. Case No. 50 of 2022, apprehending breach of peace.
It is averred in para 18 of the affidavit that remaining area of Gata no.3284 and 3283/1 is vacant at the spot and that there is no proposal by the Land Management Committee for reserving Gata nos. 3283/1, 3284, 3285 as playground nor any requisition proceedings have been initiated.
It has been further stated that the petitioner has filed a suit being Original Suit no. 41 of 2022 seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the same plots in question. An application seeking temporary injunction has also been filed in the aforestated suit and the matter is subjudice.
Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents points out that the reliefs sought in the present petition are similar as those which are sought in the pending suit. It is stated that the order passed in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. also relates to the same plots of land.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition has been filed suppressing the aforestated material facts.
Counsel for the petitioner has been able to dispute the aforestated factual and legal submissions and states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents has no objection to the aforestated prayer.
The petition stands dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 12.9.2022
Kirti
(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J)
