Court No. - 30
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3297 of 2018 Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parmeshwar Yadav,Uttam Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brij Kumar Yadav,Ramendra Asthana
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Parmeshwar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri M.L. Maurya, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and perused the record.
Present PIL has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 2 to remove the illegal encroachment upon Arazi No. 2882MI area 0.717 hectare situated at village Talgram No. 146787 Pargana Telgram Dehat, Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj encroached by the respondent nos. 5 to 7.
Instructions filed by the learned Standing Counsel dated 28.4.2018 were taken on record vide order dated 9.4.2019, according to which the hotel/dhaba in dispute is existing on gata no. 2882 mi (banjar land). According to the respondents, the old plot no. is 3644. In the instructions, it has been stated that the proceedings for eviction are going on in the Court of Tehsildar. It has further been stated that Jai Gopal and Raghvendra @ Dharamveer s/o Kaptan Singh and Sudhanshu and Isha Devi w/o Prabhat Kumar jointly own a land measuring 1.920 hectare and have sufficient accommodation/house and therefore, they have no problem of residence or of livelihood. Relevant documents have also been placed on record along with the instructions.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the private respondent no. 6-Raghvendra Singh s/o Sri Kaptan Singh. Specific averments have been made in paragraphs 5 to 24. it has been categorically stated that when interference was caused by the petitioner-Satendra Kumr, Kaptan Singh filed Original Suit No. 242 of 2006 (Kaptan Singh vs. Satendra Singh and others) wherein interim order was passed by the Civil Court. Chhibramau, District Kannauj on 26.9.2013. Subsequently an appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2013 (Kaptan Singh vs. Satendra Singh and others) was filed by the father of respondent no. 6 and in paragraph 16 it has been categorically stated that Satendra Singh (petitioner herein) was arrayed as defendant no. 1 in the aforesaid Original Suit No. 242 of 2006 and was also arrayed as respondent no. 1 in the aforesaid appeal, which clearly shows that the petitioner is aware of the proceedings pending between the parties and this fact has been concealed. In paragraphs 18 it has been categorically sated that the aforesaid cases are being duly contested by the petitioner-Satendra Singh herein.
Certain other allegations regarding political rivalry and that other Original Suit No. 119 of 2018 (Raghvendra Singh vs. Neeraj Singh and others) is also pending between the parties have also been asserted in subsequent paragraphs of the counter affidavit. It has further been pointed out that order of status quo passed by the Court below is still going on.
Reply to the same has been given in paragraphs 6 and 7 of rejoinder affidavit, which are quoted as under:
"6. That the contents of paragraph No. 5 & 6 of the counter affidavit are incorrect, hence categorically denied. In reply thereof it is submitted that the present PIL is against the legal encroachment of Plot o. 2882mi, area 0.717 hectare.
7. That the contents of paragraphs No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25 of the counter affidavit relating to the matter of fact, which does not have any relation to the present PIL Petition, hence these paragraphs are misconceived and categorically denied."
From perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that pendency of the litigation between the parties is not in disputed and this fact was concealed in PIL.
In such view of the matter, present PIL is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. FiveThousand), which the petitioner shall deposit with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of one month from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of 'High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad'.
If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand), the Registrar General of this Court shall inform the District Magistrate/Collector concerned for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue, who shall after recovering the said amount from the petitioner, transmit it to the Registrar General of this Court for depositing in the account of 'High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad' within a further period of three months.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Abhishek