Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41743 of 2019 Petitioner :- Riyajuddin Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Shankar,Triveni Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravi Prakash Srivastava
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ajay Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 3 and 4, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the advertisement issued by the respondents Nagar Palika Parishad, Sonbhadra in respect of certain plots and shops constructed over and above the land which now the petitioner claims to be his land as having a valid title on the basis of some entry of possession recorded in the Fasli Year of 1940-41 which according to him is a Khasra Abadi.
The question of title is dependent upon two factors: one, the person must have been recorded in the annual register (Khatauni) after coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the entry should be relatable to the date of vesting i.e. 1356-1359 Fasli and then in the case of Municipal Land one should be so a recorded on the date of enforcement of the U.P. Urban Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. None of the documents to that effect have been brought on record. The title is sought to be set up on the basis of some entry in the Khewat Register prior to the abolition of Zamindari or as the case may be prior to the coming into force of the Urban Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The respondents have already got constructed their shops for the purposes of allotment and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner ever objected to such constructions at any point of time by filing any civil suit to that effect. A common law remedy could have been invoked by the petitioner if he was aggrieved at any point of time for the unauthorized encroachment by the local body in respect of the land in question. In our considered opinion the petitioner has not made out any case of valid title even prima facie case to warrant interference.
The prayer has been made to give a liberty to invoke the common law remedy. In our considered opinion whether it is a case of mandatory injunction or a declaratory decree, limitation has already run out and no direction as such can be issued. No liberty is required as we have refused to grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed.
(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 17.12.2019 NS