Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27565 of 2020 Petitioner :- Bihari Lal Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Shekhar Mishra,Upendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sahab Tiwari
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Shri Sahab Tiwari appears for the respondents.
This application has been filed for reviewing the judgement and order dated 20.1.2021 by which the writ petition in question was dismissed with following observations:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Sahab Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5.
Petitioner is before this Court with a request commanding the respondent no. 3, Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Mathura to reconstruct the building and boundary wall of the petitioner situated in Khasara No. 583Ka, Area 1.0110 hectare in Rajpur Banger, Vrindavan, Post Vrindavan, Tehsil Sadar, District Mathura. With a further request commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of petitioner over the land in question and to pay the compensation to the petitioner for illegal demolition of his boundary wall.
At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Sahab Tiwari raised two-fold objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, in view of the categorical report submitted by Additional Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Mathura dated 24.11.2020 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition), this much is apparent that the petitioner had encroached upon certain Nagar Nigam land illegally, which has been removed by the Nagar Nigam and there is no interference over the land belongs to the petitioner. Secondly, with regard to the land in question, Civil Suit No. 86 of 2011 (Bihari Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) is pending consideration as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy.
Once an objection is being raised, the Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as report dated 24.11.2020 and finds substance in the objections so raised by learned Standing Counsel. Admittedly, with regard to land in question Civil Suit No. 86 of 2011 (Bihari Lal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) is pending consideration. We also make it clear that in case an incumbent is trying to take law into his own hand, then the common law remedy is to be invoked by the petitioner as is provided for under Code of Criminal Procedure, but as far as this Court is concerned, this Court cannot accord any relief to petitioner, as has been prayed by him.
With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is always open to the petitioner to invoke the remedy as available in law."
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find that present review application has been preferred on the basis of judgment and decree dated 13.2.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.86 of 2011, which is stated to be decreed in favour of the petitioner. From bare perusal of record, we are of the opinion that in pith and substance the petitioner by way of present review application is trying to execute the judgment and decree, even though the decree is neither appended along with the writ petition nor with the review application.
It is clearly reflected from the order under review that each and every facet of the matter has been examined by this Court and in the garb of review application, rehearing cannot be permitted. Consequently, in the facts of the case the review application has no merit and the same is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 SP/