Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16114 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Indu Dutta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Krishna Roy,Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
The petitioner herein seeks the following reliefs:-
i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to provide the petitioner a constructed shop on the vacant land she was allotted in a written agreement on 23.10.2000.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to allot the petitioner an alternative shop in the vicinity of that place.
iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent No.3 to finally sanction the map for the construction of the house of the petitioner within a stipulated time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the lease agreement dated 23.10.2000, a piece of vacant land of approximately 15x10 ft. was allotted to the petitioner on rent of Rs.250/- per month with the permission to construct the shop over the said land.
The petitioner had constructed the shop on the land allotted to her and was running a business on the same but the respondent illegally interfered in the possession of the petitioner and hence, a Civil Suit No.230 of 2020 (Smt. Indu Dutta Vs. State of U.P. and others) was filed, wherein notices were issued to the opposite party on 26.02.2021. The suit is pending as on date. To circumvent the pending suit, the SDM, Sadar had issued notice to the petitioner under Section 133 Cr.P.C. on 12.03.2021 and the shop in question had been demolished on the pretext that it was an encroachment over the public land.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit filed by the petitioner for protection has been rendered infructuous with the demolition of the shop.
Having perused the plaint of the aforesaid suit, we find that the petitioner can seek appropriate relief in the pending suit, dispute being with regard to the same property between the same party.
The petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Nitin Verma