Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35511 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bhulan Pal and another Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Jitendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
The petitioners are before this Court with the prayer for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess them from the land of Arazi No.235 area 0.376 hectares situated in Village Salempur, Post Sarai Mohiuddinpur, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur and to direct the respondent no.3 to decide their application dated 3.10.2018 within stipulated time.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that earlier the petitioners had approached this Court by preferring Writ C No.17924 of 2018 (Bhulan Pal and another vs. State of UP and 5 others) and the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.5.2018, relying upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Writ C No.14336 of 2011 (Ram Krishna vs. State of UP and others) with a rider that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute without drawing appropriate proceeding under Section 122B of UP ZA & LR Act/Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. He further apprised to the Court that when the aforesaid order had not been complied with by the respondents then in such situation the petitioners had preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No.4631 of 2018 (Ram Anuj vs. Chandress Kumar Singh), which was disposed of on 5.9.2018 asking the respondents for compliance of the direction issued by the Writ Court within next twelve weeks.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners states that at no point of time the proceeding under Section 122B of UP Z.A. & L.R. Act/Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 has ever been finalized. There is imminent danger of dispossession of the petitioners. He has also apprised to the Court that for the same property, Original Suit No.171 of 1992 is pending consideration. The petitioners are poor persons and they are in possession of the property in dispute. In case the respondents dispossess them from the land in question then they would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
On the other hand, Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel has raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition precisely on the ground that once in the earlier round of litigation this Court had already disposed of the aforesaid writ petition on 18.5.2018 asking the respondents to finalize the proceedings as per provisions contained under Section 122B of UP ZA & LR Act/Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and record also reflects that the Original Suit No.171 of 1992 is also pending consideration, then in such situation no indulgence is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by preferring aforesaid Writ Petition and the said writ petition has already been disposed of on 18.5.2018 asking the respondents to finalize the proceedings as per provisions contained under Section 122B of UP ZA & LR Act/Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Moreover, the Original Suit No.171 of 1992 is also pending consideration. In case the petitioners are not party in the suit proceeding, they have every right to be impleaded in the aforesaid Original Suit or they may file a separate suit for injunction.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 RKP