Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2573 (ALL)

Somari Devi v. State of U. P.

2016-07-26

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Somari Devi is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 31.05.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur by which the petitioner had been asked to deposit an amount of Rs.45,120/- for the expenses of police force incurred for complying the order dated 04.04.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.14758 of 2016 (Somari Devi Vs. State of U.P. & others). As per record this much is reflected earlier the petitioner had approached this Court twice. She had filed Writ Petition No.54944 of 2015 (Somari Devi Vs. District Magistrate & 4 others) and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.09.2015 had proceeded to dispose of the writ petition with following observations: - "In the prayer clause of the writ petition, the petitioner has sought a relief of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.4/Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur to provide police force along with mahila police to the Consolidation Authority to go at the spot for demarcation. The petitioner has not given any representation to the respondent no.4/ Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur for redressal of her grievance. Hence, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed for want of representation to be made to the respondent no.4/Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur." Thereafter the petitioner again preferred Writ Petition No.14758 of 2016 (Somari Devi Vs. State of U.P. & 5 others) and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.04.2016 had disposed of the writ petition with the following observations: - "In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition, with the direction to the Respondent No.5-Superintendent of Police, District Mirzapur to provide adequate police force to the Respondent No.3, to get the Chak allotted to the petitioner, demarcated, and the demarcation shall be done, within a period of one month's from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, alongwith an application for demarcation to be presented before the Respondent No.3. However, the expenses incurred into towards providing of police force, shall be borne by the petitioner." As per record this much is reflected that on both the earlier occasions the petitioner had prayed for mandamus directing the respondents i.e. Settlement Officer Consolidation, Mirzapur to demarcate the land of the petitioner (Chakdar No.543) to implement the order dated 21.08.2014 passed in Appeal No.139-A, filed under Section 21(2) situated in Village Chinlikh, Tappa-Kon, Pargana-Kantit, Tehsil-Sadar, District Mirzapur within a time bound period. The aforesaid prayer was accorded by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.04.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.14758 of 2016 with the observation that "However, expenses incurred into toward providing of police force, shall be borne by the petitioner". This much is also reflected from the record in question that thereafter the petitioner moved a detailed representation to the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur for compliance of the aforesaid order for providing requisite number of police personnel so that demarcation could be made on the spot. Once this is the factual situation that the petitioner had approached this Court twice with the prayer that suitable police force may be provided to the petitioner for the demarcation of land and in light of the Division Bench directives so issued, the District Administration with the help of police force demarcated the land in question and the same had been handed over to the petitioner then there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order dated 31.05.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur. Once the petitioner herself had asked for the aforesaid prayer and the same was accorded by the coordinate Bench and the same has also been complied with by the administrative authorities on the spot then at this stage no question can be raised against the expenses which is to be incurred for providing adequate security. Once the leave was accorded by this Court itself that the expenses incurred towards providing of police force shall be borne by the petitioner then in our considered opinion, no relief as has been prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition can be accorded. The writ petition sans merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.