Allahabad High Court
B.P.Tripathi vs U.P.Housing And Others on 13 July, 2010
Author: Pradeep Kant
Bench: Pradeep Kant, Ritu Raj Awasthi
1
Court No. 1
Writ Petition No. 786 (MB) of 1995
Basudeo Prasad Tripathi
Vs.
U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad and others.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner Sri A.P. Shukla and Sri Madan Gopal Misra for Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
It appears that certain land was acquired by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, including plots no. 614 and 618, having an area of 10 biswan 10 biswansi, situated in Village Ghazipur-Saidunnisan, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow under Bhumi Vikas Evam Grah Sthan Yojna, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, which is commonly known as Indira Nagar Yojna. This was done sometimes in the year 1969.
There appears to be some dispute between the petitioner Basudeo Prasad Tripathi (since deceased) and Avas Evam Vikas Parishad with respect to a portion of the land, who allegedly started raising unauthorised constructions. Therefore, Avas Evam Vikas Parishad filed a regular suit bearing number 278 of 1990 in the court of Civil Judge, Lucknow.
As per the case of both the parties, the learned Civil Judge passed an order of maintaining status quo, with respect to the property in suit by both the parties. The present writ petition was filed as despite the order of status quo being passed by the learned Civil Judge, certain constructions were demolished, namely, 15 shops and 4 rooms etc. The petitioner apprehended that his temples, Gaushala etc. which were standing on plot no. 614, would be demolished and, therefore, he filed the present writ petition.
In the present writ petition, an interim order was passed restraining the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad from further demolishing the structures and interfering in the possession of the premises, of which the structure was demolished in part. This interim order was passed on 23.3.95.
Sri Madan Gopal Misra says that in the counter affidavit filed by Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, it has been specifically denied that the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has violated the interim order passed by the learned Civil Judge, in any manner and they had not demolished the portions which were protected under the interim order. He further submits that possession 2 of plots no. 614 and 618 was delivered on 7.9.73 by Special Land Acquisition Officer and it was mutated in the name of Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. Possession certificates have also been brought on record.
There is no challenge to the acquisition proceedings in the present writ petition. The only prayer made, is that the respondents be restrained from demolishing the west portion of plot no. 614 and also not to raise any construction over the demolished portion.
If the land has been acquired under a notification issued by the Parishad, there would be no occasion for this Court to intervene and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, that too, in the absence of any challenge to the said acquisition proceedings.
So far the plea of the petitioner that despite status quo order being passed by the learned Civil Judge, certain constructions have been demolished is concerned, suffice would be to mention that in view of the categorical denial of Avas Evam Vikas Parishad in this regard, this Court would not enter into this question, particularly when such an issue can be raised before the civil court itself, whose temporary injunction/status quo order is said to have been violated.
The plea of the respondents that they have got the possession of plot no. 614 also and they are in possession is already engaging the attention of the civil court, where the parties are contesting the case.
We also do not find any reason to believe that Avas Evam Vikas Parishad would take any action in violation of the orders passed by the civil court.
We are informed that the civil suit is still pending. In the presence of the aforesaid civil suit and for the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to keep this writ petition pending any further.
We, however, direct that the pending suit be decided expeditiously, say within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, subject to co-operation of the parties.
The parties are also at liberty to seek any additional interim relief or any further interlocutory order from the court, where the matter is pending.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Dated: 13.7.2010 MFA