Allahabad High Court
M/S Saurabh Diary vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 6 July, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18277 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Saurabh Diary Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the development authority and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the tenant of respondent no.5 in the premises in dispute namely house no.781/590 Mumfordganj, Prayagraj. Such assertion is contained in paragraph nos.1 and 3 of the writ petition.
3. In that context, the petitioner contests the proceedings seeking demolition of the offending structures standing on the property in dispute. Two submissions have been advanced. First, it has been submitted that the entire action is malafide. It has been initiated at the behest of respondent no.5 with whom the petitioner is in dispute over the property in question. Here, it has been strenuously urged that the structure in question has been in existence for 22 years. Second, it has been submitted, earlier respondent no.5 entered into an agreement to sell (with the petitioner), pursuant whereto the petitioner has paid valuable consideration Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase the property in question. On account of refusal by respondent no.5 to execute the sale deed, a civil suit being OS No.200 of 2021 was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Garvi), Allahabad.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the development authority submits that the petitioner has no locus. The notice for demolition was issued to the owner/landlord/respondent no.5. Thereupon, the order of demolition was passed. Still, petitioner challenged the order in appeal which has also been disposed of. A fresh order has now been passed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, undisputedly, the petitioner is only a tenant of respondent no.5 who is the owner of the land in question over which the offending structure stands. Petitioner does not claim ownership of the same. Once notice had been issued to the owner/landlord and that proceeding was concluded, the petitioner in his capacity as tenant would have no independent right to contest the proceedings. Merely because the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the notice by virtue of his tenancy, would not give any right to the petitioner to resist the action proposed against the offending structures, raised by the owner/landlord.
6. Again undisputedly, it is not the case of the petitioner that offending structures had been raised by it. Pleadings made in paragraph no.3 of the writ petition are clear in that regard. In absence of any other/further pleadings made in the writ petition, it has to be assumed that the offending structures were raised by the landlord/respondent no.5 and not the petitioner.
7. The fact that respondent no.5 may have entered into dispute with the petitioner and the further fact that the said respondent may be perceived to be a gainer if the structures were to be demolished (owing to pre-existing dispute between the parties), it may not create any right in favour of the petitioner as may impress on this Court to offer any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In their daily transactions citizens enter into civil disputes, every day. Forums for resolution of the disputes are also provided. Here the petitioner has already filed one suit with respect to the property in dispute. Any damage that the petitioner may claim to suffer on account of any tortious or other act, may only give rise to appropriate proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction. However that may not confer locus on the petitioner to file the present petition to resist demolition of constructions raised by respondent no.5 against the law, on his own property. It may also not confer any cause of action on the petitioner in face of his own assertion that the proceedings were initiated by the development authority against the owner/landlord and the further assertion of such proceedings having terminated with the order passed for demolition.
9. In view of the facts noted above, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.7.2022 S.Chaurasia