Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 519 (ALL)

Subodhi v. State of U. P.

2016-02-12

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma, J. The petitioner who appeared in person had initially instituted the present writ petition in public interest, which came to be dismissed on 18 November 2015 in the following terms. "The petitioner who appears in person is not present before the Court. With the assistance of the learned Standing Counsel, we have perused the writ petition and the annexures thereto. From the annexures to the writ petition it appears that the petitioner has a personal grievance in regard to possession in respect of which civil proceedings are also pending before the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Hence, it would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain a public interest litigation. However, we clarify that this would not prevent the petitioner from taking recourse to such civil remedies as are available in law including those which have already been adopted. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs". 2. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed an application for recall of the judgment rendered by the Court on 18 November 2015. This recall application also came to be dismissed on merits vide judgment and order dated 14 December 2015 as follows: - "The applicant who has appeared in person seeks recall of the judgment rendered on 18 November 2015. The writ petition of the applicant had come to be dismissed upon the Division Bench finding that he had a personal grievance in regard to possession of the plot in question and in respect of which civil proceedings were pending before the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. This finding had come to be recorded by the Division Bench bearing in mind Annexure-1 to the writ petition which was an application dated 22 August 2015 submitted by four tenure holders seeking expungement of the name of Arun Kumar from the revenue records. From the material filed along with the present application for recall, we find yet again an extract of the revenue record which establishes that the name of the applicant-petitioner came to be expunged and the name of Arun Kumar recorded as Bhumidhar thereon pursuant to the orders passed by the Tehsildar, Bindki. Obviously as long as the said revenue entry remains no relief can be accorded to the petitioner. Obviously as long as the said revenue entry remains no relief can be accorded to the petitioner. We accordingly find no ground warranting recall of our judgment rendered on 18 November 2015. The application is consequently dismissed." 3. Aggrieved thereby a second application seeking recall of our earlier orders has come to be filed. Quite apart from the application being thoroughly misconceived, we find no material which may warrant a review of the orders passed on 18 November 2015 and 14 December 2015. The application is dismissed.