Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1381 (ALL)

Ram Dhananjay v. State of U. P.

2019-05-20

SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Saral Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Plot Nos. 181, 189 and 205 situated in Village Ramai Patti, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur. 2. According to the petitioner there are many tenure holders of the aforesaid plot and petitioner is one of them. It transpires from the record that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have purchased part of land of Plot Nos. 181, 189 and 205. 3. It appears that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submitted an application under section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for conversion of land for non agricultural purposes, which was registered as Case No. D201716530602 of 2017 and was allowed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Mirzapur by order dated 3.7.2017. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court challenging the order dated 17.3.2017 by filing Writ Petition No. 20877 of 2018 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 6.7.2018 directing the petitioner to submit an application under section 82 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred as "Code, 2006") before Competent Authority within three weeks from the date of the order, the Competent Authority shall dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of filing the said application. 5. It appears that during the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 20877 of 2018, the petitioner has already submitted an application under section 82 of the Code, 2006 on 3.7.2018. When the Competent Authority did not decide the stay application filed by the petitioner in proceedings under section 82 of the Code, 2006, the petitioner preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4543 of 2018 before this Court, whereby this Court passed the following order: "After some argument, Counsel for the applicant prayed for withdrawal of the contempt application at this stage, with liberty to the applicant to file a proper application under section 82 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The prayer made is allowed. The contempt application is disposed of, with liberty in terms of the prayer made." 6. Thereafter, the petitioner in compliance of the order of this Court dated 30.8.2018 in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4543 of 2018, submitted another application in proper format under section 82 of the Code, 2006. 7. The prayer made is allowed. The contempt application is disposed of, with liberty in terms of the prayer made." 6. Thereafter, the petitioner in compliance of the order of this Court dated 30.8.2018 in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4543 of 2018, submitted another application in proper format under section 82 of the Code, 2006. 7. According to the petitioner, the stay application in proceedings under section 82 of the Code, 2006 was misplaced from the record and, thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 33120 of 2018 wherein the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus. This Court by order dated 4.10.2018 disposed of the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order dated 4.10.2018 is extracted herein below: "Once this Court has already disposed of earlier petition as well as the contempt application, I find no reason to entertain the present petition. However, if allegation of the petitioner is that although the application for interim protection was filed but due to manipulation by the respondents, the same is not on record, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application for interim protection before the authority concerned, who shall consider and decide the same in the light of the order of this Court dated 6.7.2018 passed in Writ-C No. 20877 of 2018. Present petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. No order as to costs." 8. The authorities did not decide the application of the petitioner, consequently, the petitioner, thereafter, preferred Contempt Application (Civil) No. 507 of 2019 which was dismissed by this Court. The relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below: "In view thereof, the contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to make an appropriate application, in accordance with law." 9. Now, the petitioner again has preferred the said writ petition and has pressed only prayer No. 3 which is extracted herein below: "(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the Case No. D201816530004362 of 2018 (Sunt Dass v. State of U.P. and others), under section 82 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as expeditiously as possible within a stipulated time." 10. From the fact stated above, it is evident that the petitioner has approached for the same cause of action twice before this Court and, this Court by order dated 6.7.2018 directed the authorities to decide the application of petitioner within two months. In the subsequent Writ Petition No. 33120 of 2018 this Court refused to issue writ of mandamus for the reason that the petitioner has already approached this Court by filing writ petition which was disposed of and a contempt application for compliance of the order of this Court was also dismissed. 11. The facts as stated above clearly reflects that this is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of mandamus seeking a direction which has already been given to the petitioner by this Court in its order dated 6.7.2018. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed.