Daya Ram v. Collector Ambedkar Nagar and Ors) wherein vide order dated

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5. Sri Pratibhan Yadav has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of private respondent no.6 which is taken on record. By means of the instant petition the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.3 and 4 to remove alleged encroachment said to be made by respondent no.6 from Gata no.1139 which is said to be a chak road situate in Village and Post Makrahi, Pargana Birhar, Tehsil-Alapur District-Ambedkar Nagar and a further relief has been claimed that the proceedings initiated by the State respondent against the private respondent no.6 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 may be decided within a time to be fixed by the Court. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plot of the petitioner is adjacent to plot no.1139 which is recorded as a chak road. It is further urged that the said encroachment was made on the said chak road by the private respondent no.6. In such circumstances, the petitioner earlier had preferred a writ before this Court bearing writ petition no.11731 (MB) of 2015 (Daya Ram vs Collector Ambedkar Nagar and Ors) wherein vide order dated 22.12.2015 the petition was disposed of directing the order of the Tehsildar be implemented and the encroachment may be removed. It is further submitted that on the basis of the said order the chak road was freed of the encroachment. However, once again the private respondent no.6 is allegedly raised his encroachment over the chak road and the petitioner has been compelled to approach the Court once again seeking removal of the encroachment. Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing counsel on the basis of the written instructions issued under the signature of S.D.M, Alapur dated 02.01.2025 has been provided to the Court for perusal which is taken on record. In the said instructions, it has been indicated that there is some encroachment over the plot no.1139 and the authorities have already initiated proceedings against one Sri Indresh, Sri Ram Dev and Sri Ram, (the private respondent no.6 herein) and it is also pointed out that the matter are listed before the appropriate court on 10.01.2025, 13.01.2025 and in so far as the present private respondent is concerned, the matter is also listed on 10.01.2025 and appropriate action would be taken. Sri Pratibhan Yadav learned counsel for the private respondent no.6 has pointed out that the petitioner has not disclosed true and correct facts. It is urged that after the orders were passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the year, 2015, the encroachment was removed. The private respondent no.6 has already initiated proceedings for demarcation as well as for correction of map. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was a party and, thereafter, the present petitioner has filed an appeal against the order passed in favour of the private respondent no.6 dated 02.02.2024. The said appeal was filed on 02.03.2024 and the said fact has not been indicated either in the pleadings nor disclosed and thus, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. It is also pointed out that thought an attempt was made by the petitioner to pursue the remedy by seeking an interim order in the appeal, however, there is no order passed therein. It is further urged that there are reports which was submitted before the revenue authorities after inspection wherein the area as well as the plot of the petitioner has been properly demarcated. Since the plot of the present petitioner is contiguous to the plots of the private respondent no.6 hence, while concealing the aforesaid facts, the instant petition has been preferred and moreover, once the proceedings have been initiated against the private respondent by the State, the petitioner herein does not have right to maintain the petition. A specific query was put to Sri G.M. Kamil, learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has disclosed the fact regarding the on going litigation between the petitioner and the private respondent no.6 to which he submitted that though he has knowledge of the litigation but this fact has not been indicated in the petition. Be that as it may, in light of the prayer which has been made by the petitioner including the undisputed fact that the petitioner himself has initiated an appeal against the private respondent no.6 which is engaging the attention of the appropriate court since March, 2024 coupled with the fact that the State Authorities have also initiated proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 against the private respondent no.6, this Court is of the view that the petition, at this stage, at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner has also not approached the Court with clean hands as there is no candid and complete disclosure as required and held to be compulsory in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadav and others vs Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Educational Society and others; (2013) 11 SCC 531. Since this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary in nature, hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is dismissed. It is made clear that mere dismissal of the petition may not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the matter regarding any plea of either the petitioner or the private respondent no.6, and in any case, it shall be considered and decided by the forum who is seized of the matter strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Harshita

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5. Sri Pratibhan Yadav has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of private respondent no.6 which is taken on record. By means of the instant petition the petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.3 and 4 to remove alleged encroachment said to be made by respondent no.6 from Gata no.1139 which is said to be a chak road situate in Village and Post Makrahi, Pargana Birhar, Tehsil-Alapur District-Ambedkar Nagar and a further relief has been claimed that the proceedings initiated by the State respondent against the private respondent no.6 under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 may be decided within a time to be fixed by the Court. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plot of the petitioner is adjacent to plot no.1139 which is recorded as a chak road. It is further urged that the said encroachment was made on the said chak road by the private respondent no.6. In such circumstances, the petitioner earlier had preferred a writ before this Court bearing writ petition no.11731 (MB) of 2015 (Daya Ram vs Collector Ambedkar Nagar and Ors) wherein vide order dated 22.12.2015 the petition was disposed of directing the order of the Tehsildar be implemented and the encroachment may be removed. It is further submitted that on the basis of the said order the chak road was freed of the encroachment. However, once again the private respondent no.6 is allegedly raised his encroachment over the chak road and the petitioner has been compelled to approach the Court once again seeking removal of the encroachment. Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing counsel on the basis of the written instructions issued under the signature of S.D.M, Alapur dated 02.01.2025 has been provided to the Court for perusal which is taken on record. In the said instructions, it has been indicated that there is some encroachment over the plot no.1139 and the authorities have already initiated proceedings against one Sri Indresh, Sri Ram Dev and Sri Ram, (the private respondent no.6 herein) and it is also pointed out that the matter are listed before the appropriate court on 10.01.2025, 13.01.2025 and in so far as the present private respondent is concerned, the matter is also listed on 10.01.2025 and appropriate action would be taken. Sri Pratibhan Yadav learned counsel for the private respondent no.6 has pointed out that the petitioner has not disclosed true and correct facts. It is urged that after the orders were passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the year, 2015, the encroachment was removed. The private respondent no.6 has already initiated proceedings for demarcation as well as for correction of map. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was a party and, thereafter, the present petitioner has filed an appeal against the order passed in favour of the private respondent no.6 dated 02.02.2024. The said appeal was filed on 02.03.2024 and the said fact has not been indicated either in the pleadings nor disclosed and thus, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. It is also pointed out that thought an attempt was made by the petitioner to pursue the remedy by seeking an interim order in the appeal, however, there is no order passed therein. It is further urged that there are reports which was submitted before the revenue authorities after inspection wherein the area as well as the plot of the petitioner has been properly demarcated. Since the plot of the present petitioner is contiguous to the plots of the private respondent no.6 hence, while concealing the aforesaid facts, the instant petition has been preferred and moreover, once the proceedings have been initiated against the private respondent by the State, the petitioner herein does not have right to maintain the petition. A specific query was put to Sri G.M. Kamil, learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has disclosed the fact regarding the on going litigation between the petitioner and the private respondent no.6 to which he submitted that though he has knowledge of the litigation but this fact has not been indicated in the petition. Be that as it may, in light of the prayer which has been made by the petitioner including the undisputed fact that the petitioner himself has initiated an appeal against the private respondent no.6 which is engaging the attention of the appropriate court since March, 2024 coupled with the fact that the State Authorities have also initiated proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006 against the private respondent no.6, this Court is of the view that the petition, at this stage, at the behest of the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner has also not approached the Court with clean hands as there is no candid and complete disclosure as required and held to be compulsory in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadav and others vs Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Educational Society and others; (2013) 11 SCC 531. Since this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is purely discretionary in nature, hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is dismissed. It is made clear that mere dismissal of the petition may not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits of the matter regarding any plea of either the petitioner or the private respondent no.6, and in any case, it shall be considered and decided by the forum who is seized of the matter strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Harshita