Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 856 (PAT)

Hare Krishna Ram v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board

2007-05-01

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. Petitioners, eight in number, were sought to be evicted from their shops, which were admittedly wakf property. They challenged their eviction before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8871 of 2002. After the respondents appeared, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 23.8.2002 (Annexure 1). Before this Court the Wakf Board and the Mutwali stated that displaced tenants including the eight petitioners will be accommodated in the new shops to be constructed over the wakf property as the old were having mud walls and Kutcha roofs but the petitioners would have to agree to fresh terms of tenancy and they would be given preferential treatment. The petitioners in turn agreed to vacate the respective shops within two months from the date of order i.e. within two months from 23.8.2002. 3. Now, by this writ application the petitioners have stated that the petitioners having vacated the premises and the new shops having been constructed, the Wakt Board and the Mutwali have not made any offer to them and have let out the shops to other persons, which is a violation of the order of this court, as contained in Annexure 1, referred to above. 4. The Mutwali and the Board have appeared and filed separate counter affidavits. They have pointed out that instead of complying with the order of this court, the petitioners first challenged the order of this court by preferring a LP.A. unsuccessfully. Then they refused to vacate the shops because of which the Board had requested the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take action in getting the shops vacated as ordered by this court. When Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed orders against the petitioners to vacate the shops, the petitioners contested the matter and then challenged the order before the Sessions Judge without success. Even then they did not surrender their tenancy and ultimately Sub-Divisional Magistrate had to take steps to take over possession and handover to Mutwali, as is apparent from his communication, which has been appended in the counter affidavit. It would thus be seen that the possession was restored to Mutwali and the Board after six months, and that too by the S.D.M. and not by the petitioners themselves. 5. In my view the order of this court passed earlier was an order, which required reciprocal compliance. The petitioners had given undertaking to vacate the premises voluntarily within two months. 5. In my view the order of this court passed earlier was an order, which required reciprocal compliance. The petitioners had given undertaking to vacate the premises voluntarily within two months. If they had done so the respondents were obliged to make an offer -for fresh tenancy once the shops are constructed. Here admitted position is that the petitioners took all steps to avoid vacating the premises and delayed the effectuality of eviction much against the!; undertaking given before this coutt.They have thus not obeyed that part of the order of this court by which they had agreed to vacate the premises. The petitioners had to be evicted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. That being the position, I do not think petitioners can assert their rights under the same order which they have knowingly violated. It is well settled that if a party claims an equitable relief, then it is for him to establish that he has done equity first to seek equity. An equitable relief is not a relief as a matter of right. Here, the petitioners have not only not done equity but have violated the order passed on their application. They are thus not entitled to any equitable relief. 6. This writ petition is dismissed.