Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17601 of 2021 Petitioner :- Mahesh Bhartiya @ Mahesh And Siyaram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishal Tandon learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4 and Sri Ajay Singh learned Advocate appears for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
The present is wholly misconceived writ petition with the prayer to seek cancellation of the order dated 28.2.2020 whereby the map submitted by the petitioner for raising construction over the plot in question has been approved.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the property in question is subject matter of the civil suit and an interim injunction order has also been passed by the court below in the pending suits. The petitioner had succeeded in getting the sanction of the map by order dated 28.2.2020 by concealment of the correct facts.
On a pointed query made by the Court as to what is the right of the petitioner in the property in question, it is sought to be submitted that the property in question is an ancestral property and they are in possession for a long time.
This submission is based on the averments in paragraph '4' of the writ petition.
There is a reference of two Original Suits namely Civil Suit Nos. 436/2004 and 833/2003 pending before the civil court with regard to Arazi No. 266 area 18 Biswa, which is stated to be the disputed property.
It is then contended that respondent no. 4 who had obtained the order of approval/sanction of map is a purchaser of the disputed land from some of the co-sharers by a registered sale deed dated 19.10.2019. During the pendency of the suits, their names have been mutated in the revenue records in collusion with the revenue officials.
In none of the paragraph of the writ petition, the petitioners have disclosed that they are party to the aforesaid civil suits. The plaint of the Original Suit no. 436 of 2004 has not been brought on record. A perusal of the plaint of the Original Suit No. 833 of 2003 (at page '73' of the paper book) does not indicate that the petitioners are arrayed therein.
In view of the incomplete and incorrect facts in the writ petition, we do not find it a fit case to entertain.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, it is kept open for the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the court below in case of any dispute relating to the title of the property in question.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Brijesh Digitally signed by SUNITA AGARWAL Date: 2021.08.25 10:32:28 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by Justice Deepak Verma Date: 2021.08.25 10:32:42 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad