Allahabad High Court
Salauddin vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 December, 2023
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:227435
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2023 of 2022
Petitioner :- Salauddin
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abdul Majeed,Arun Kumar Pandey,Sufia Saba
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sufia Saba, learned counsel for contesting respondent.
2. This Court has passed following order on 11.10.2022 :-
"Grievance of the petitioner is that the Consolidation Officer has illegally passed an order to delete his name from plot no. 105 measuring area 0.012 hectare and plot no. 107 measuring area 0.287 hectare and the same was illegally affirmed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner by approval order dated 24.01.1990. Aforesaid allotment still stands and the same has not been challenged before any competent court. The Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the ex parte report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, has passed ex parte order dated 15.11.2007 expunging the name of the petitioner from revenue record treating the land in question as Pond under Class 6(1). One of the ground has also been taken by the Consolidation Officer to the effect that there is double entry of plot no. 105 measuring area 0.012 hectare in two khatas i.e. khata nos. 102 and 107. In appeal, specific plea has been taken by the petitioner that land in question was never recorded as a pond. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has decided the appeal without adverting to the said plea as raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is next submitted that original record has never been summoned by the consolidation courts to verify the factum of the entry of pond, however, the matter has been decided only on the basis of the report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has simply affirmed the order passed by the courts subordinate without verifying the facts from the original record and without adverting to the grievance of the petitioner.
Matter requires consideration.
Respondents no. 1 to 4 are represented through the learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for Gaon Sabha-respondent no. 5 is present.
List this matter on 05.12.2022.
In the meantime, parties shall exchange their respective affidavits.
Till the next date of listing, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to possession and nature of the land in question. "
3. The Court has asked following specific query to counsel for petitioner that :-
(i) Whether a copy of alleged 'Patta' is enclosed with this writ petition?
(ii) Whether details mentioned in impugned order such as 'Akar Patra' as well as basis of submission that there were double entry are enclosed with this writ petition?
4. The answer for above referred queries remained in negative.
5. It is also pointed out by learned Standing Counsel for State as well as counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in connected PIL (bearing No. 2497 of 2023) that there is already an order against applicant in a proceeding under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 dated 18.08.2023, however, the same has also not been brought on record by filing an affidavit.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, since petitioner has not come up with clear hand and suppressed material facts before this Court and since it is well settled that petitioner who sought to invoke writ jurisdiction has to come with clean hand. In this regard few paragraphs of a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and two others, 2023:AHC:193413, being relevant are mentioned hereinafter:-
"?. ???????? ? ????????
(?). ???? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??, ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??.??.?? ? ??.??.?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??.??.???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????????? ???
(?). ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ? ???? ????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ? ???? : (????) ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?????-
" ??-?.??????? ???? ?? ??????,?? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ????????????? ?? ???? ???? ??, ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????????, ?????????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ? ???? ?????? ?? '????-????' (???? ??? ???) ????? ?? ???? '??? ?? ?????' (??? ??? ????) ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????, ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? (????? ?????) ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ???? (??????) ???? ???? ??? ????????? ????????????? ?? ??? ????, ???? ? ????? (???) ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????????? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ? ??????????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? "???????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????"
(???? : ???? ?? ????? ? ???? ????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ? ???? : (????) ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ) ?? ??????? ?????? ??) "
7. The Court is of considered opinion that since petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10000/- to be deposited by petitioner in favour of District Legal Services Authority, Amroha within three weeks from today.
8. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.
Order Date :- 1.12.2023
P. Pandey
