Mr. A.M. Saklani vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 2642 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No.1429 of 2021

                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via Video Conferencing)

Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mahendra Singh Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.

The petitioner, who is plaintiff in Suit No.28 of 2005-06 "Lakhan Singh vs. Banbeer Singh & Others" had earlier approached this writ Court on as many as on four occasions by filing the following writ petitions:-

i. The first writ petition, which was filed by the petitioner for an identical relief seeking an expeditious disposal of suit being Suit No.28 of 2005-2006, Lakhan Singh vs. Banbeer Singh and others, was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment of 22.03.2007. ii. The second writ petition was preferred for an identical relief being Writ Petition No.526 of 2013 (M/S), Lakhan Singh vs. Assistant Collector and Others, which was disposed of on 25.05.2013.

iii. The third writ petition was preferred by petitioner for the identical relief being Writ Petition No.2859 of 2014 (M/S) Shankar Lal vs. Union of India and others, which was disposed of on 23.12.2014. iv. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred the fourth writ petition being Writ Petition No.1306 of 2016 (M/S) Lakhan Singh vs. Assistant Collector Pradhan Shreni Dehradun and others, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment of 11.05.2016, thereby directing the competent authority i.e. the Assistant Collector Ist Class to decide the proceedings under Section 176 and Section 178 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 expeditiously. The same was not decided within time period provided by this Court as it was directed by the judgment of 11.05.2016.

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for an identical relief and which is fifth in sequence, filing concurrent writ petition for the same cause of action is not contemplated and permissible under law, if the directions issued earlier were not complied with, the petitioner ought to have worked out his remedies, available to him under law. If the direction was not complied with for deciding the proceedings within the time period provided by the High Court, but that in itself will not entitle the petitioner to file recurring writ petitions, for the same relief.

Hence, this Court declines to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, by issuing direction as sought in the present writ petition, which is the fifth one in sequence. Hence, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 27.07.2021 Arti