Satya Prakash & Anr. v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Heard Sri Gauri Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

Petitioners before this Court had intially instituted a civil suit no. 38 of 1998 against 17 persons, who were added as defendants. An ad-interim injunction was grated in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners in respect of Arazi No. 155 and 87 on the basis of Advocate Commissioner report, which was submitted on 27.03.2000. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/petitioners had moved an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading Gaon Sabha, Executive Engineer and the State as defendants in the suit, which was allowed by order dated

03.01.2007. On 06.10.2020, the application No. 417-C was moved for seeking interim injunction against newly added defendants nos. 19 to 21 in respect of the area, which lies on the North Western side of Arazi No. 155 ajoining Arazi No.

Arazi 106 is recorded as Pokhar (pond) where Gaon Sabha and State Authorities-the defendants nos. 19 to 21, according to the petitioners, are raising construction of public toilet. The trial court rejected the application on 02.11.2020 thereafter, Misc. Appeal was preferred by the plaintiff petitioners being Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 2020, which has been dismissed by the order impugned dated 20.08.2024. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that temporary injunction was granted in respect of Arazi no. 155 and 87 against defendant nos. 1 to 17, which also applies upon the newly added defendant nos. 19 to 21 and they are violating the temporary injunction and raising construction on the part of said land by making public toilets.

Learned Standing Counsel has defended the order passed by the court below and submitted that the finding has been recorded by both the court below that public toilets are coming up over Arazi No. 106. It is further contended that till date the plaint has not been amnended and only application 417C has been moved and no relief has been claimed against the State or Gaon Sabha in respect of Arazi No. 155 or 87.

I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material on record. It is an admitted case that initially an ad-interim injunction was granted by the court concerned against defendant nos. 1to 17. Later on in the year 2007, the defendant 19 to 21 were impleaded as defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiffs petitioners. Upon application filed in the year 2020, a relief has been sought for restraining the State authorities from making the public toilet, on the North Western side of Arazi No. 155, which adjoins Khasra No. 106. There is no Commissioner report on record to substantiate that constructions have been made at Arazi No. 155. Both the court below has recorded finding that petitioners themselves have stated that construction is being made on the corner side of plot no. 155 along with Arazi no. 106, which is a public land. There is no amendment to the plaint nor any relief has been claimed by the plaintiff in the suit against the newly added defendants, hence no interference is required in the order impugned. However, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as directed by the court below over Arazi No. 155 and 87.

However, it is made clear that the Court has not granted any relief in respect of Arazi no. 106, where public toilets are being made by the State-Authorities. Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Shiraz