Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 285 (ALL)

DILEEP KUMAR [P. I. L. ] v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-01-20

A.P.SAHI, SANJAY HARKAULI

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri B.Q. Siddiqui holding brief of Shri Farooq Ayoob and Ms.Anupama Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. Notices have been accepted on behalf of the respondent No. 6/Gaon Sabha by Shri Azad Khan and Shri Jagrit Sharma, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 3. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed on a clear assertion that Plot No. 444 is a playground as it then stood under Section 132 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 had been unlawfully occupied by the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and therefore, a mandamus has been prayed for to take appropriate action in the matter. 4. The petitioner had earlier filed two writ petitions about which facts have been stated on record. One writ petition was dismissed as not being maintainable as a Personal Interest Litigation and the Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-joinder of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. This is how this third petition has been filed by the same petitioner. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed and the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have put in appearance stating clearly therein that the petitioner has deliberately not disclosed the correct facts with regard to the status of the land. It is urged that the land had been resumed by the State Government under Section 117 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act long back and has been transferred to the Information Department and the Film Corporation of Uttar Pradesh. The entry in the name of the corporation was made and a Cinema Hall has been constructed over the said plot of land. This fact has been entered into Khatauni which the petitioner has filed himself as Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition. Thus, the status of the land was not that of a playground as on date when the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 proceeded to purchase the said Cinema Hall in an auction of the properties of the said Film Corporation. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 that these facts clearly change the nature of the dispute and the petitioner had no locus to maintain this petition that too even on incorrect facts. 6. We have examined the same and we find the averments made by the respondent Nos. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 that these facts clearly change the nature of the dispute and the petitioner had no locus to maintain this petition that too even on incorrect facts. 6. We have examined the same and we find the averments made by the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to be correct. Once the land had been resumed and had been leased out to the U.P. Film Corporation and the structure standing there over has been purchased by the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the land had lost its nature of a playground as alleged in the writ petition. Thus, it ceases to be a land for public utility as envisaged under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that once the original lessee had failed to utilise the land any further then in that event, according to the terms of the lease, the land would stand reverted back to its original position. We are unable to agree with this submission, inasmuch as, once the resumption has been made under Section 117 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, the land cannot revert back unless the power is exercised once again by vesting the management of the land in the Gaon Sabha. 8. Consequently, this argument of the petitioner has no legs to stand. The aforesaid intervening transactions have been conspicuously not stated in the writ petition as such this is not a bona fide public interest litigation nor a writ petition would lie for any such grievance. There is no merit in the petition. The writ petition is rejected.