High Court · 2025

5. Shri Bal Mukund, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.1, 2 and 3 has invited our attention towards the orders dated 07.11.2023 passed in Writ-C No.38420 of 2023 and

09.09.2024 in Writ-C No.23369 of 2024 filed by the petitioner in the past in relation to her claim for compensation. He submits that filing of repeated writ petitions on the same cause of action is gross abuse of the process of law. According to him, the petitioner also instituted a civil suit (O.S. No.891 of 2023) but withdrew it with liberty to file fresh suit. Now, instead of filing fresh suit, the present writ petition has been filed, though, the dispute raised is purely factual in nature. He submits that in such circumstances, this court should decline to entertain the writ petition.

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had filed two previous writ petitions before this court in relation to her claim regarding compensation. It is also not disputed that the petitioner instituted Suit No.891 of 2023 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Saharanpur 2 in respect of the same land seeking mandatory injunction against the Railways for removal of the loco shed.

7. In the second writ petition bearing No.23369 of 2024 filed by the petitioner, she did not annex the order passed in the first writ petition and also did not disclose about filing of the suit. The court found that there was suppression of material facts while filing the second writ petition and, ultimately, the same was dismissed as not pressed. The order passed in the second writ petition dated 09.09.2024 is as follows: "1. Heard Sri P.P. Chaudhari, assisted by Shri Gyan Prakash Verma for the petitioner, Shri P.N. Rai for respondents No. 6 & 7 and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed praying for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation of the petitioner in Gata No. 1067 area 0.1686 hectare, and Gata No. 1235 area 0.5530 hectare which is situated in village Shekhpura, Pargana, Tehsil and District Saharanpur."

3. The case of the petitioner is that her property has been encroached by the railway and some locoshed has been constructed over it.

4. On last date, we were informed that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 38420 of 2023 before this Court relating to the same cause but the said fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. The petitioner had also concealed about filing of Suit No. 891 of 2023 by her in the civil court. Consequently, we passed the following order on 14.08.2024 : "1. During course of hearing, it transpired that Writ Petition No. 38420 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner before this court, but which fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. 3

2. It also appears from the instructions placed on record by Sri P.N. Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7, that the petitioner had filed Suit No. 891 of 2023 (Smt Shahista Pravin vs. Madhepura Electric Locomotive Pvt. Ltd. & Others) before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur in respect of the same issue. However, there is no disclosure about the said suit.

3. Sri P.N. Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7, prays for time to place on record plaint of the said suit.

4. Accordingly, adjourned to 9.9.2024 as a fresh case."

5. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it is not disputed that the petitioner had earlier preferred Writ Petition No. 38420 of 2023 before this Court in relation to the same dispute and the said fact was not disclosed by her. The explanation given in para-3 of the affidavit is that by mistake, the order of the said case could not be annexed.

6. In relation to the filing of the suit by the petitioner, it is stated that an application for its withdrawal has been filed. However, filing of the suit by the petitioner in respect of same grievance, has not been disputed.

7. We have gone through the plaint and we find that the petitioner has prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the railways to remove the locoshed and handover vacant possession to the petitioner. The said fact was having material bearing on the maintainability of the instant petition and on the issue as to whether this Court should interfere in the matter or not.

8. At this stage, Shri P.P. Chaudhari, Advocate and Shri Gyan Prakash Verma, counsel for the petitioner pray for dismissal of the petition as not pressed.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed."

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the aforesaid factual position, submitted that in the instant petition, the petitioner has disclosed about the filing of both the writ petitions, therefore, this time, the writ petition should be entertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has placed 4 reliance on the judgement of Supreme Court in Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 120.

10. In the aforesaid case, the appellant before the Supreme Court had filed a writ petition before learned Single Judge in the High Court challenging termination of her service. The admitted fact in the said case was that, although, she was a confirmed employee but her service was terminated without complying with the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that she had concealed about filing of a civil suit before the civil court challenging her termination and seeking a declaration that the order of termination was illegal, null and void. She also concealed that she filed an application for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction but no injunction was granted in her favour. The judgement of the learned Single Judge was challenged by way of intra court appeal and the same was also dismissed. In the said backdrop, the Supreme Court while holding that the High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition also observed that, in case, any fresh writ petition is filed, the same should be decided on its own merits. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in this regard in Arunima Baruah (supra) and on which great emphasis was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner are extracted below: 5 "20. In this case, however, suppression of filing of the suit is no longer a material fact. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court may be correct that, in a case of this nature, the court's jurisdiction may not be invoked but that would not mean that another writ petition would not lie. When another writ petition is filed disclosing all the facts, the appellant would be approaching the writ court with a pair of clean hands, the court at that point of time will be entitled to determine the case on merits having regard to the human right of the appellant to access to justice and keeping in view the fact that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India.

21. The judgement of the High Court, in a case of this nature, shall not operate as a res judicata.

22. For the reasons aforementioned, while we uphold the judgement of the High Court, are of the opinion that in the event the appellant files a fresh writ application, the same may be considered on its own merits. The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. No costs."

11. As noted above, it is not disputed that the petitioner had instituted a civil suit against respondents no.1, 2 and 3 for permanent prohibitory injunction for removal of the loco shed over the land allegedly owned by her. In the said suit, she filed an application bearing Paper no.27 क stating that the dispute between the parties essentially related to demarcation and, therefore, she should be granted permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. Although, the said application was opposed by the defendants, but it came to be allowed by the trial court vide order dated 23.10.2024. This was after dismissal of the second writ petition of the petitioner by this court on 09.09.2024 as not pressed. No liberty was given to the petitioner to file any fresh writ petition. Moreover, it is clear from the stand taken by the petitioner herself that there was dispute 6 between the parties relating to identity and demarcation of the land in question. This is also evident from the report of the Consolidator dated 06.04.2023 which states that loco shed was in existence over Gata no.245/1 and not over the plots of the petitioner. The determination of issue relating to identity and demarcation of the subject land needed a factual enquiry and for which reason the petitioner withdrew her suit with liberty to file fresh suit. However, instead of filing any fresh suit for appropriate reliefs, she has filed the instant petition.

12. In the facts and circumstances noted above, we decline to entertain the instant petition. The petitioner has already been granted permission to institute fresh suit while permitting withdrawal of the previous suit. It is always open to the petitioner to avail such remedy.

13. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Ankit. ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 7

5. Shri Bal Mukund, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.1, 2 and 3 has invited our attention towards the orders dated 07.11.2023 passed in Writ-C No.38420 of 2023 and

09.09.2024 in Writ-C No.23369 of 2024 filed by the petitioner in the past in relation to her claim for compensation. He submits that filing of repeated writ petitions on the same cause of action is gross abuse of the process of law. According to him, the petitioner also instituted a civil suit (O.S. No.891 of 2023) but withdrew it with liberty to file fresh suit. Now, instead of filing fresh suit, the present writ petition has been filed, though, the dispute raised is purely factual in nature. He submits that in such circumstances, this court should decline to entertain the writ petition.

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had filed two previous writ petitions before this court in relation to her claim regarding compensation. It is also not disputed that the petitioner instituted Suit No.891 of 2023 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Saharanpur 2 in respect of the same land seeking mandatory injunction against the Railways for removal of the loco shed.

7. In the second writ petition bearing No.23369 of 2024 filed by the petitioner, she did not annex the order passed in the first writ petition and also did not disclose about filing of the suit. The court found that there was suppression of material facts while filing the second writ petition and, ultimately, the same was dismissed as not pressed. The order passed in the second writ petition dated 09.09.2024 is as follows: "1. Heard Sri P.P. Chaudhari, assisted by Shri Gyan Prakash Verma for the petitioner, Shri P.N. Rai for respondents No. 6 & 7 and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed praying for the following relief: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the compensation of the petitioner in Gata No. 1067 area 0.1686 hectare, and Gata No. 1235 area 0.5530 hectare which is situated in village Shekhpura, Pargana, Tehsil and District Saharanpur."

3. The case of the petitioner is that her property has been encroached by the railway and some locoshed has been constructed over it.

4. On last date, we were informed that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 38420 of 2023 before this Court relating to the same cause but the said fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. The petitioner had also concealed about filing of Suit No. 891 of 2023 by her in the civil court. Consequently, we passed the following order on 14.08.2024 : "1. During course of hearing, it transpired that Writ Petition No. 38420 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner before this court, but which fact has not been disclosed in the writ petition. 3

2. It also appears from the instructions placed on record by Sri P.N. Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7, that the petitioner had filed Suit No. 891 of 2023 (Smt Shahista Pravin vs. Madhepura Electric Locomotive Pvt. Ltd. & Others) before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur in respect of the same issue. However, there is no disclosure about the said suit.

3. Sri P.N. Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7, prays for time to place on record plaint of the said suit.

4. Accordingly, adjourned to 9.9.2024 as a fresh case."

5. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it is not disputed that the petitioner had earlier preferred Writ Petition No. 38420 of 2023 before this Court in relation to the same dispute and the said fact was not disclosed by her. The explanation given in para-3 of the affidavit is that by mistake, the order of the said case could not be annexed.

6. In relation to the filing of the suit by the petitioner, it is stated that an application for its withdrawal has been filed. However, filing of the suit by the petitioner in respect of same grievance, has not been disputed.

7. We have gone through the plaint and we find that the petitioner has prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the railways to remove the locoshed and handover vacant possession to the petitioner. The said fact was having material bearing on the maintainability of the instant petition and on the issue as to whether this Court should interfere in the matter or not.

8. At this stage, Shri P.P. Chaudhari, Advocate and Shri Gyan Prakash Verma, counsel for the petitioner pray for dismissal of the petition as not pressed.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed."

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing the aforesaid factual position, submitted that in the instant petition, the petitioner has disclosed about the filing of both the writ petitions, therefore, this time, the writ petition should be entertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, has placed 4 reliance on the judgement of Supreme Court in Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 120.

10. In the aforesaid case, the appellant before the Supreme Court had filed a writ petition before learned Single Judge in the High Court challenging termination of her service. The admitted fact in the said case was that, although, she was a confirmed employee but her service was terminated without complying with the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that she had concealed about filing of a civil suit before the civil court challenging her termination and seeking a declaration that the order of termination was illegal, null and void. She also concealed that she filed an application for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction but no injunction was granted in her favour. The judgement of the learned Single Judge was challenged by way of intra court appeal and the same was also dismissed. In the said backdrop, the Supreme Court while holding that the High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition also observed that, in case, any fresh writ petition is filed, the same should be decided on its own merits. The relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in this regard in Arunima Baruah (supra) and on which great emphasis was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner are extracted below: 5 "20. In this case, however, suppression of filing of the suit is no longer a material fact. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court may be correct that, in a case of this nature, the court's jurisdiction may not be invoked but that would not mean that another writ petition would not lie. When another writ petition is filed disclosing all the facts, the appellant would be approaching the writ court with a pair of clean hands, the court at that point of time will be entitled to determine the case on merits having regard to the human right of the appellant to access to justice and keeping in view the fact that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India.

21. The judgement of the High Court, in a case of this nature, shall not operate as a res judicata.

22. For the reasons aforementioned, while we uphold the judgement of the High Court, are of the opinion that in the event the appellant files a fresh writ application, the same may be considered on its own merits. The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. No costs."

11. As noted above, it is not disputed that the petitioner had instituted a civil suit against respondents no.1, 2 and 3 for permanent prohibitory injunction for removal of the loco shed over the land allegedly owned by her. In the said suit, she filed an application bearing Paper no.27 क stating that the dispute between the parties essentially related to demarcation and, therefore, she should be granted permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. Although, the said application was opposed by the defendants, but it came to be allowed by the trial court vide order dated 23.10.2024. This was after dismissal of the second writ petition of the petitioner by this court on 09.09.2024 as not pressed. No liberty was given to the petitioner to file any fresh writ petition. Moreover, it is clear from the stand taken by the petitioner herself that there was dispute 6 between the parties relating to identity and demarcation of the land in question. This is also evident from the report of the Consolidator dated 06.04.2023 which states that loco shed was in existence over Gata no.245/1 and not over the plots of the petitioner. The determination of issue relating to identity and demarcation of the subject land needed a factual enquiry and for which reason the petitioner withdrew her suit with liberty to file fresh suit. However, instead of filing any fresh suit for appropriate reliefs, she has filed the instant petition.

12. In the facts and circumstances noted above, we decline to entertain the instant petition. The petitioner has already been granted permission to institute fresh suit while permitting withdrawal of the previous suit. It is always open to the petitioner to avail such remedy.

13. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Ankit. ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 7