Allahabad High Court
Shiv Pratap vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 2 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:18693
Court No. - 49
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2699 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shiv Pratap
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Saroj,Sunil Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
1. Heard Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nand Lal Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5-Gram Sabha and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8.
2.Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 8 submitted that respondent No.6 has expired long back but petitioner has impleaded a dead person as respondent No.6 in the instant public interest litigation. He further submitted that civil suit for injunction in respect to the plot in question filed by deceased Raj Narayan (grand father of respondetn Nos.7 and 8) has been decreed by the Civil Court and decree has not been set aside by any Court. He further submitted that suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by deceased Raj Narayan was decreed by the trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 05.11.1992 declaring Raj Narayan as bhumidhar/Grove holder of plot No. 181. He further submitted that State has filed a recall application against the judgment and decree passed under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, which has been allowed in arbitrary manner setting side the judgment and decree dated 05.11.1992 and dismissing the plaintiff suit. He further submitted that revison filed by the father of respondent Nos.7 and 8 was allowed setting aside the order of Sub Divisional Officer by which the plaintiff suit was dismissed and matter was remitted back before the trial court to decide the suit afresh on merit. He further submitted that in view of the civil court decree as well as the pendency of the proceeding under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act, the instant writ petition in respect to the plot in question cannot be entertained.
3. Mr. Nand Lal Maurya, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.5-Gram Sabha on the basis of the instruction dated 19.11.2023 also submitted that proceeding under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act is pending before the trial court in respect to the plot in question, as such the proper action shall be taken after the adjudication of the controversy in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not annexed the copy of the civil Court decree as well as the proceeding pending before the revenue court as the petitioner was not aware about the same. He further submitted that petitioner was not aware about the death of the respondent No.6. He further submitted that plot in question is recorded as public utility land in the revenue record, as such the public interest litigation has been filed for removal of encroached in respect to the plot in question.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding in respect to the plot in question under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act at the instant of the private respondents is pending before the revenue court. There is also no dispute about the fact that at one point of time decree under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A &L.R. Act was passed in favour of grand father of contesting respondents, which has been recalled later on. There is also no dispute about the fact that civil court decree in respect to plot in question is still in operation.
7. Since suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A & L. R. Act in respect to plot in question is pending before revenue court and decree of civil court in respect to plot in question is also in operation but petitioner has not disclosed all these facts in the instant public interest litigation, as such the same cannot be entertained.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the matter. The instant public interest litigation is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2024
PS*
