Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
1. Heard Sri Harihar Prasad Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinit Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Ashish Misra, learned counsel for the respondent no.5
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief :
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce the copy of proposal for constructing buildings for residence of Hon'ble judges of this Court over nazul plot 19, Clive Road, Prayagraj and letter of approval by the cabinet of State of UP as published in daily newspaper Amar Ujala dated 24.11.2020 and entire records pertaining to proposals sent by the respondent no.2 to the State of Uttar Pradesh and document/correspondence in respect of aforesaid attached property.
ii. Issue a writ, order and direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proposal and approval by the cabinet of State of Uttar Pradesh and other relevant documents, orders, related with nazul plot no. 19, Clive Road, Prayagraj whenever these documents are produced before this Hon'ble Court as these documents are in the possession and control of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and the petitioners are not being provided these documents by them.
iii. Issue writ order and direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent nos.1 and 2 not to proceed further in pursuance of proposal for constructing residential building for Hon'ble judges of this Court and approval of cabinet of the State of Uttar Pradesh."
3. Petitioners claim themselves to be Union of workers of Allahabad Patrika (P.) Ltd. Several decades ago they had some award in their favour from labour court. Vide order dated 13.01.1992, the Assistant Collector Chayal, Allahabad, under Section 289 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 read with Rule 279 of the Rules, attached some properties of the Allahabad Patrika Pvt. Ltd. which is stated to be a subsidiary company of Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd.
4. The property involved in the present writ petition is 19 Clive Road, Allahabad, of which M/s. Amrit Bazar Patrika, Pvt. Ltd. was the lessee and the lessor was the State Government. The lease of the aforesaid property expired some time in the year 1987. As on the date of aforesaid attachment dated 30.01.1992, the lease was not subsisting. There has been series of litigation relating to this property. Ultimately, the matter reached to Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5254 of 2010 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. United Bank of India and others) and three other connected Civil Appeals, i.e. Civil Appeal No.4688 of 2010 (M/s Amrit Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Jvine Development Pvt. Ltd and others), Civil Appeal No.2462 of 2010 (United Bank of India vs. Vs. M/s Jvine Development Pvt. Ltd and others) and Civil Appeal No.1969-1970 of 2010 (Northern India Patrika A.P.K.S. Morcha vs. United Bank of India and others), which all were decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2015. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Amrit Bazar Patrika, Pvt. Ltd. had only the lease hold rights and the Bank could not have been given right to auction the property as the Amrit Bazar Patrika had only limited right which had expired in the year 1987. After making the aforesaid observations, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, concluded in para 45 as under :
"45. After considering the entire facts of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, we come to the following conclusion:-
(i) Indisputably, the property in question i.e. Premises No.19, Clive Road, Allahabad is a Nazul land governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895 and Nazul Rules.
(ii) The property was given on lease by the State of U.P.to Mrs. Mortha Anthony and second time the lease was renewed in favour of Ms. Verna Anthony and Ms. Leena Anthony for a further period of 50 years which was valid up to 31.8.1987.
(iii) During the subsistence of lease, the leasehold interest was transferred in 1945 in favour of ABP Co. and on the basis of the said transfer a lease was executed in 1949 by the State of U.P. in favour of ABP Co. for the remaining period of lease which expired in 1987.
(iv) As against the loan taken by the Company from the Bank, a mortgage was created in respect of the property by the Company in favour of Bank. The lease in respect of the leasehold interest in the property admittedly expired in 1987.
(v) The mortgage so created by the Company in favour of the Bank in respect of Nazul land without the sanction of the State of Uttar Pradesh in terms of the lease, is ab initio void, hence no right was created in favour of the Bank by reason of the said mortgage.
(vi) Consequently, a mortgage decree obtained by the Bank on the basis of settlement, in absence of and behind the back of the State of U.P. could not have been enforced against the State. The subsequent proceedings of transferring the decree to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and again passing an order for auction sale of the property on the basis of settlement is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
(vii) The appellant Bank has no right, title or interest in the property so as to claim a right of conversion of the property into a freehold property.
(viii) The impugned notice issued by the State of U.P. directing resumption of the property is legal and valid and cannot be quashed at the instance of the Bank."
5. In the above referred judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 22 as under :
"22. The contention of the appellant-Bank is that only on the basis of the notice issued on 9.12.1998, the appellant cannot be deprived of its rights. It is pertinent to mention here that the above notice was not issued to the appellant Bank, but was issued to the Secretary/Director of M/s ABP Pvt. Ltd. Vide letter No. 56/Nazul-(CL)-XXI-8/11(96-97) dated 19th December, 1998 in relation to the Nazul land No.25 and 25A, Chikatpur, Nasibpur Bakhtiara. Hence, the appellant is not competent to file any petition and challenge the above notice. It is worthwhile to mention that the above show cause notice was issued on the ground of violation of the terms of lease for which a reply was filed by Shri B.P. Tiwari, Secretary of M/s ABP Co. Ltd. dated 13.01.1999. This Court vide order dated 8.1.1999 in the writ petition has stayed further proceedings of the above show cause notice issued on 19.12.1998. It is also worthwhile to mention here that in the case of Nazul Land No.120-1/2 Civil Station (which is situated at 10, Edmoston Road), on violating the terms of lease by raising illegal construction without prior sanction and for other irregularities, a show cause notice vide letter No.448/Nazul-(CL)-XXI-8/51(80-81) dated 14th May, 1999 was sent to the Director/Secretary of M/s ABP Pvt.Ltd through registered post and its reply was given by Shri B.P. Tiwari, Secretary, ABP Pvt. Ltd. on 27.5.1999 and in that reply no justified reasons have been given by the Secretary of the above Company for the violation of the terms of the lease by unauthorisedly raising construction and for unauthorisedly running a workshop for repairing LML Vespa Scooter. Hence, after thorough consideration when it was found that the issuance of new lease in favour of M/s ABP was not in accordance with rules, the name of M/s ABP was cancelled from the above land vide order No. 47/Nazul-CL-XXI-8/51(80-81), dated 9th May, 2005 and the entire area of Nazul Land No.120-1/2 Civil Station has been vested with the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the appellant Bank by the State. Hence, the appellant was not aggrieved by these notices in any manner. Neither the appellant-Bank is having any relation with both the lands in question nor any lease of the above land has ever been sanctioned in its favour."
6. From the aforequoted paragraph 22 of the above referred judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court it is evident that the lease of the property in question was cancelled by the State Government by order dated 09.05.2005 and the entire area of Nazul land no.120-1/2 Civil Station (Muncipal No.19 Clive Road, Prayagraj) has vested in the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Vide order No. 471/vkB&4&2020&114,[email protected] dated 30.07.2020, the State Government transferred the aforesaid land (19 Clive Road, Prayagraj) being Nazul Bhookhand No. 25, 25 A, measuring 24,280.34 sq. meters to the High Court, Allahabad, for construction of residential houses of Hon'ble Judges. The aforesaid Government order dated 30.07.2020, as produced by the learned Chief Standing during the course of hearing, is reproduced below :
la[;k& [email protected]&4&2020&114,[email protected] isz"kd] nhid dqekj] izeq[k lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa] ftykf/kdkjh] iz;kxjktA vkokl ,oa 'kgjh fu;kstu vuqHkkx&4 y[kuÅ% fnukad% 30 tqykbZ] 2020 fo"k;% fpdriqj ulhciqj cf[r;kjk ¼19 Dyko jksM½ iz;kxjkt fLFkr utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&25] 25, {ks=Qy 24280-34 oxZehVj Hkwfe dks ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn ds ek0 U;k;ewfrZx.k ds vkoklh; Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k gsrq U;k; foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu dks fu%'kqYd gLrkUrj.k fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d vius i= la[;k&[email protected]&,l0,u0lh0&2019&20 fnukad 07-01-2020 dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA 2- bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd 'kklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr foRr ys[kk vuqHkkx&2 ds dk;kZy; Kki la[;k&,& [email protected]&17&14¼4½@14 fnukad 03-02-1977 ds izkfo/kkuksa dks f'kfFky djrs gq, vioknLo:i fpdriqj ulhciqj cf[r;kjk ¼19 Dykbo jksM½ iz;kxjkt fLFkr utwy Hkw[k.M la[;k&25]25, {ks=Qy 24280-34 oxZehVj utwy Hkwfe dks ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn ds ek0 U;k;ewfrZx.k ds vkoklh; Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k gsrq U;k; foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ds i{k esa Jh jkT;iky egksn; fuEufyf[kr 'krkZsa ,oa izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu fu%'kqYd gLrkUrj.k dh lg"kZ vuqefr iznku djrs gSa%& ¼1½ mDr utwy Hkwfe dk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds U;k;ewfrZx.kksa ds vkoklh; Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k gsrq mi;ksx fd;k tk;sxkA ¼2½ utwy Hkwfe dk fu/kkZfjr iz;kstu gsrq mi;ksx fd;k tk;sxkA ;fn fu/kkZfjr iz;kstu ls brj Hkwfe dk mi;ksx fd;k tk;sxk rks mlds fy, vkokl ,oa 'kgjh fu;kstu foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kklu ls iqu% lgefr izkIr fd;k tk;sxkA ¼3½ mDr gLrkUrfjr utwy Hkwfe dh vko';drk ugha gksus ;k 03 o"kZ rd fu/kkZfjr iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx esa ugha yk;s tkus ij vkokl ,oa 'kgjh fu;kstu foHkkx dks utwy Hkwfe okil dj fn;k tk;sxkA ¼4½ Hkfo"; esa bls n`"VkUr ugha ekuk tk;sxkA Hkonh;
¼nhid dqekj½ izeq[k lfpoA la[;k& 471¼1½vkB&4&2020&114,[email protected]] rn~fnukadA izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"krA 1- izeq[k lfpo] U;k; foHkkx] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA 2- egkfuca/kd] ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkcknA 3- e.Myk;qDr] iz;kxjkt e.MyA 4- xkMZ QkbyA vkKk ls] ¼eukst dqekj ekS;Z½ vuq lfpoA
7. From the facts aforenoted, it is evident that the disputed land has now been transferred to the High Court, Allahabad, by the aforequoted Government Order.
8. The aforequoted Government order dated 30.07.2020 is not under challenge in the present writ petition. The title of the State Government with respect to the disputed land is neither disputed in the present writ petition nor it can be disputed in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.11.2015, passed in Civil Appeal No.525 of 2010 (State of U.P. and Others Vs. United Bank of India and others) and three other connected Civil Appeals. The petitioners have no right, title or interest in the property in question which fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us stating that the petitioners do not claim any right, title or interest in the disputed property instead their grievance is only with respect to the recovery of their labour award.
9. In view of the facts admitted by learned counsel for the petitioners as aforenoted, we find that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition for the relief sought. That apart, the petitioners have completely failed to establish even prima facie that they have any legally protected or judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus to restrain the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from proceeding further for construction of residential building for Hon'ble Judges of the High Court.
10. For the reasons stated in foregoing paragraphs and also the conclusions reached by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 26.11.2015 in Civil Appeal No.5254 of 2010, the petitioners have no right to make any claim for recovery against the property in question i.e. 19, Clive Road, Prayagraj.
11. For all the reasons aforestated, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
12. We make it clear that in the event the petitioners have any rightful claim, they may press their claim against their employer and the properties belonging to the employer.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021/vkg