Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27891 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Jain And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jata Shankar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Singh,Pranjal Mehrotra,Vrindavan Mishra
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Jata Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Singh, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no. 3 and Sri H.R. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2.
2. Though the list is being revised, Sri Anand Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 is not present.
3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed with the following prayers:
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 5.12.2018 (Annexure No. 5 ) passed by the Respondent No. 2 to this writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction of the petitioners situated at Khasra No. 27M and 28 situated at Mahana Sarai alias Kot Goan and Khasra No. 620 situated at Village Nsirpur, District Ghaziabad.”
4. The prayer as aforesaid clearly reveal that the petitioner is aggrieved against an order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad directing for removal of unauthorized encroachment over a piece of land after carrying out necessary measurement on the spot on a particular date i.e., 12.12.2018.
5. Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 has placed before this Court paper book of Writ Petition No. 1105 of 2019 in which these very persons as petitioners had preferred that writ petition against the same order dated 5.12.2018.
6. This Court after hearing the counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition declined to interfere with the order passed on 5.12.2018. The relevant paragraphs and operative portion of the order dated 17.4.2019 passed in Writ C No. 1105 of 2019 is reproduced hereunder:
“We find that this is, precisely, the request made in the impugned order by the Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, which is in spite of a report submitted by the Tehsildar and Sub Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad dated 27.10.2018. We, therefore, are of the view that the petitioners can have no grievance in so far as the impugned order dated 05.12.2018 is concerned, as they also want the land to be demarcated.
We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition with the direction to the respondent no. 3, the Nagar Ayukta, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, to get the land demarcated expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.”
7. The argument therefore, advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the present writ petition is not maintainable and is clearly barred by Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court as not only the identical facts have been stated but even identical reliefs have been prayed for. Further learned counsel for the respondents has placed instructions before this Court and learned counsel for the respondent has also taken us to various annexures appended along with short counter affidavit from the perusal of which it is revealed that one of the petitioners Arvind Kumar Jain had already accepted notice regarding inspection/ verification to be conducted in respect of the land in question pursuant to the order passed by this Court (supra) in the earlier writ petition.
8. It also transpires from the records that after carrying out the inspection proper report has come to be submitted by the authorities and recommendation has been made for instituting proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the above factual position.
10. In such view of the matter, this Court cannot entertain second writ petition on the same set of facts.
11. Since the proceedings under Section 67 have been recommended for, it is always open for the petitioner to participate and contest the said proceedings before the appropriate authority.
12. The writ petition is dismissed, consigned to records.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Nadeem Ahmad (Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)