Ankur Jain v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, Chief Justice Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

Heard Smt. Rama Goyal Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, for respondent no. 2, Shri Harsh Vardhan Gupta, for respondent no. 3, Shri Raghuvansh Misra, for respondent no. 4 and Shri Pawanshree Agarwal along with Shri Abhay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has appeared for the State respondents.

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the Secretary, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, respondent no. 2 to reject the map submitted by the respondent no. 5 for raising constructions over the property in dispute.

The lis between the parties is in respect of landed property owned and possessed by Antim Kewali Sri 1008 Jambu Swami Ji Mahraj installed in a temple named as Antim Kewali Sri 1008 Jambu Swami Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Siddha Chhetra Chaaaurasi situate at Diabil Nagar, Krishna Nagar, Mathura. The Deity owns huge property and is managed by a Management Committee constituted pursuant to a Decree dated 21.08.1944 passed in Original Suit No. 39 of 1942. The respondent no. 4 is the elected President of the management Committee. The respondent no. 4 with an intention to grab the properties of the Deity and frustrate the Decree passed in the Original Suit No. 39 of 1942 created a trust in the name and style of Antim Kewali Sri 1008 Jambu Swami Digambar Jain Trust and has himself become the Trustee. The respondent no. 4 illegally and erroneously executed a lease Deed of land measuring 6247.04 square meters belonging to the Deity/Temple in favour of Sri Arham Social Welfare Foundation. The illegal act of execution of the lease deed has been questioned in a Civil Suit No. 671 of 2021 in which the petitioner is the plaintiff No. 2. The Private respondent nos. 4 and 5 herein have put in appearance in the Suit and are contesting the same.

The Respondent No.5 on the strength of the lease deed executed in its favour has started to raise construction over the leased land, even without getting any map sanctioned. The Development Authority has registered a case being Case No. 393 of 2022-23 against the Respondent No.5 for raising the constructions without getting the map sanctioned. Notice under Section 28(1) of the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 has been issued. It has also been submitted that the Respondent No.5 has subsequently submitted a map for raising constructions and the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority is in a haste to sanction the same. The objections raised by the petitioner against the sanctioning of the map have not been considered by the respondents and the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority being hand in glove with the Respondent No.5 and is proceeding to sanction the map and under such circumstances the petitioner has been compelled to approach this court by means of the present writ petition.

Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, Respondent No.2, in opposition to the writ petition, submits that the Development Authority has vide its order dated 19.07.2023 a copy whereof has been handed over to us and has been placed on record, sanctioned the compounding map of the Respondent No.5 on certain conditions. He submits that since the compounding map has already been sanctioned the relief claimed under the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. If the petitioner has any grievance against the sanctioning of the compounding map he may take recourse to the remedies available to him under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 or to other civil remedies. Even otherwise, a civil suit is already pending between the parties and t he writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. It is, according prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

Learned counsels representing the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have adopted the submissions of Sri D. S. Chauhan.

We have heard learned counsels for the respective parties and have perused the record. We find that admittedly the Respondent Development Authority has sanctioned the compounding map of the Respondent No.5. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the same, if so advised, may take appropriate legal recourse against the same. Admittedly, a civil suit is also pending before the Civil Court where in the rights of the petitioners viz-a-viz the Development Authority and the private Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 herein is to be decided. We have been informed at the Bar that in the said suit an interim injunction application is stated to be pending consideration and no orders have been passed thereon till date.

In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition by requiring the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mathura, seized with the Interim Injunction Application filed in the Suit No. 671 of 2021 (Antim Kewali Sri 1008 Jambu Swami Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir vs. Sri Seth Vijay Kumar and others) to take up the said application by fixing a date for disposal of the same on the application filed by the petitioner in this regard within 3 weeks from today along with certified copy of this order and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within next 2 weeks.

For a period of 5 weeks from today or till orders are passed on the Interim Injunction Application which ever is earlier, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as existing today. Order Date :- 9.10.2023 Deepak/ (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) (Pritinker Diwaker, CJ.) DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad