Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent.
Writ petition has been filed to seek direction on opposite party no. 1 to dispose of the application submitted by the petitioners in reference to Nazool Land No. 2034/1 and other lands referred in the writ petition.
An application for impleadment has been filed alongwith documents to show necessity of the applicant for being impleaded. Learned counsel has given brief history of the case stating that an application under Section 21 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1972") was moved by the applicant. The said application was dismissed by the Court and thereupon appeal was also dismissed. He challenged those orders by taking remedy. The matter was remanded back to the Court. On remand, the application under Section 21 of the Act, 1972 was decided in favour of the applicant in respect of the property in question. The petitioners herein have challenged the order aforesaid by maintaining an appeal, which is still pending.
All these facts have been suppressed by the petitioners while praying for disposal of the application to declare the property free hold. When the applicant, who is claiming the property and remain successful, the petitioner could not have maintained the application to declare the said property to be free hold. It is when the appeal is still pending.
It is also stated that petitioners next friend or may be a stranger, preferred a suit to declare the property in dispute to be Nazool property. The suit aforesaid is also pending.
The aforesaid fact has also been suppressed from the Court. The petitioners have not even impleaded the applicant as party to the present writ petition, knowing it well that inter-se dispute between the petitioners and applicant exists, thus, conduct of the petitioners is such which disentitle them to get any relief, as they have not approached this Court with clean hands.
The facts mentioned in the application for impleadment are relevant and therefore counsel for the petitioners was given liberty to clarify the factual aspect duly supported by the documents and as to why while accepting the application for impleadment, the petition may not be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that necessary amounts have been submitted alongwith the application to declare the property in question to be free hold. The nature of the property is Nazool, thus declaration for making it free hold can be sought.
Learned counsel could not give explanation of the facts mentioned in the application and as to why those facts were not narrated while filing the writ petition. It is also when inter-se dispute exists between the petitioners and applicant, why the applicant was not impleaded as party. All these questions could not be answered, which go in the root of the case.
When the property in dispute is the subject matter of appeal, filed by the petitioners, though in reference to an application under Section 21 of the Act, 1972 moved by the applicant, then unless that appeal is decided in favour of the petitioners, they cannot seek an order for property in question to be free hold.
It is also a fact that separate suit by some one else is also pending to declare the property in question to be Nazool property. If the suit is pending and the property in question is not Nazool, direction sought in the writ petition, for consideration of the application cannot be given. It is more so when the petitioners have not placed on record any document to show that the property in question to be Nazool property. The Challan submitted by them showing property to be Nazool canot taken to be a proof for it as it was submitted by the petitioners themselves.
If the order passed by the District Collector is also seen, it shows that the property in question is a rented property.
Taking over all facts into consideration, we allow the impleadment application.
We find no merit in the writ petition, rather conduct of the petitioners is such which disentitle them to get any relief as they have not approached this Court with clean hands. They did not submit material facts despite a litigation.
Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid as well as on merits, we find no reason to keep this writ petition pending. It is accordingly dismissed.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a direction be given to the State authorities to refund the amount deposited by the petitioners for declaring the property in question to be free hold.
Prayer aforesaid is considered.
The petitioners are given liberty to make an application to the Official respondents to release the amount, if they are not intending to press the application for declaration of property in question to be free hold. In case of representation, the authorities would consider it for release of amount within a period of two months from the date of its receipt.
Order Date :- 29.8.2019 A. Verma