Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 16 May, 2023
Bench: Kshitij Shailendra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:105779
Court No. - 52
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 1026 of 2023
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Gupta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.V. Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aalok Kumar Srivastava,Anil Kumar Tripathi,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Heard Shri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Vijay Bhan Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha and Shri Alok Kumar Srivastava and Shri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.6 who have filed their Vakalatnama in the office on 09.05.2023.
2. The petition has been filed by one Om Prakash Gupta in the nature of public interest litigation with a prayer that representation dated 02.03.2023 filed by the petitioner be directed to be decided.
3. The aforesaid representation has been submitted with a prayer that attempt of encroachments be restrained over the land which was earlier recorded as "pond/ drain and dam.
4. Learned Standing Counsel has produced instructions which are taken on record. The instructions reveal that although earlier land in dispute was recorded as "pond/drain and dam", the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents have instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act-1950 (in short 'the Act-1950') which was decreed on 20.03.1964 and the names of the decree-holders were recorded as "bhumidhar with transferable rights". The instructions further reveal that in order to cancel the order dated 20.03.1964, the restoration application has recently been filed which has been registered as Case No.T-202314180403932 of 2023 which is pending.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has produced certain documents which reveal that time and again, the proceedings were held and rights of the said respondents were recognized by courts of law. Learned counsel submits that this petition has been filed with mala fide intention concealing the effect of aforesaid proceedings, description whereof is contained even in the instructions supplied by the State.
6. From perusal of record, I find that, on one hand, the petitioner has not disclosed the previous proceedings including the fact that decree was already drawn in favour of predecessors-in-interest of respondent No-6 under Section 229-B of the Act-1950 way back in the year 1964, on the other hand, this petition has been filed without ensuring compliance of the impugned provisions of Chapter XXII Sub-Rule (3-A) of Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules-1952 which were amended pursuant to the judgment of Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors., 2010 AIR SCW 1029 and the petitioner has simply stated in 'paragraph 8' of the petition that he is a social worker and has filed this petition in the public interest. The credentials of the petitioner have not been disclosed and from the over-all circumstances, this Court finds that this writ petition has been filed in order to cause damage to the persons in whose favour, the competent court has already decided the rights about 60 years ago.
7. Insofar as the proceedings of restoration registered as Case No.T-202314180403932 of 2023 is concerned, this Court has serious doubt about the maintainability of such proceedings, however, without commenting upon the same, this Court is of the view that this petition in the nature of public interest is liable to be dismissed for all the aforesaid reasons.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023
Jyotsana
