Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 324 (UTT)

SUMIT KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-07-11

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner has approached this Court in purported public interest jurisdiction. Petitioner claims to be a non-profitable society. Respondent nos. 7 to 15 who are shown to be the successors-in-interest of Mangli, Ram Swaroop and Pooran, approached the Assistant Collector in proceedings under Section 229, and their suit was decreed by directing that the property in question be corrected as Varg – 1 Ka with transferable rights. It is his further case that the sixth respondent in this case, namely, Nagar Palika Parishad, Jaspur was not made a party to the proceedings. The sixth respondent preferred Appeal. There was delay. The Application for condonation of delay was allowed. In Revision filed by the private respondents, the Application for condonation of delay was rejected. Thereupon, the sixth respondent filed writ petitions before this Court and by Annexure-5 judgment, this Court remitted the matter back to the appellate Court for recording the finding on the question of delay, as also, whether the sixth respondent had locus to challenge the order. Thereafter, the authority dismissed the Appeal by Annexure-6 filed by the sixth respondent. According to the petitioner, the sixth respondent, instead of filing further Appeal before the statutory authority, approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India resulting in Annexure-7 judgment, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the Application for condonation of delay. In fact, we notice also that the learned Single Judge proceeded to make observations relating to the merits of the matter and we also find that the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold as follows: “All told, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed with costs all throughout. It would be quite justified to direct that if the officers / officials of the municipality has taken any forcible possession over the land, in controversy, then they shall quit their possession forthwith from the same so that the private respondents or subsequent purchaser be not deprived from their lawful right to enjoy the fruits of the decree dated 30.1.2003.” 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the land in question continues to be a Talaab. Some photographs have been produced as Annexure-9 and besides the same, affidavits of two individuals have also been produced as Annexure-10 reaffirming the present status of the land in question as Talab. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the land in question continues to be a Talaab. Some photographs have been produced as Annexure-9 and besides the same, affidavits of two individuals have also been produced as Annexure-10 reaffirming the present status of the land in question as Talab. Thereafter, the relief is sought as follows: “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 3 to 5 to expunge the wrongful entries in the revenue record of the land out of Khasara No. 96 and Khasra No. 102 Ga situated at Jaspur Patti Uttam, Tehsil Jaspur, District U S Nagar as Talaab; and may direct the respondent nos. 3 to 5 to remove the encroachment over the land (i.e. Pond), in dispute, and restore the Talab in its original shape and condition as mentioned in revenue record of 1379 F. i.e. year 1971-72.” 3. We heard Mr. Devesh Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. At the stage of admission, Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate appeared on behalf of the sixth respondent. He would submit that actually, the sixth respondent has taken up the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court against Annexure 7 order and there has been stay throughout in the said writ petition and now stay has been ordered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, this is a case, where the sixth respondent, in whom, according to the petitioner, the land is vested, is already prosecuting the matter before the competent Court. We are unable to perceive any public interest in this case. We are unable to see, how the petitioner can maintain this petition. Therefore, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No order as to costs.