Ramdeyi … v. State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Lko. and 4 others

"1. Mr. Deep Narayan Tripathi, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 5 and filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner alleges interference in his possession in violation of status quo order passed in Second Appeal No. 117 of 2002, by the opposite party no. 5 in connivance with the district officials.

4. Learned standing counsel says that the land in question is a minjumla gata and the private opposite party no. 5 is also in possession.

5. Counsel for the opposite party no. 5 denies any illegal act.

6. The remedy is either in the pending second appeal or by taking recourse to any other process as may be prescribed in law.

7. This petition is not maintainable, certainly not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the disputed questions of fact involved. The petition is dismissed with liberty aforesaid."

3. Without disclosing the aforesaid facts and the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in the earlier petition, the second writ petition has been filed in respect of the same land, which was disposed of by this Court on

28.02.2025 in the following terms: "1. None appears for the petitioner, the case is backlog fresh, however, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is present.

2. The allegation is that respondent No.5 is constructing some boundary on the Bhumidhari land of the petitioner. The petitioner may approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, who may get the facts verified as to whether the respondent No.5 is claiming any rights on the land on which he is alleged to be undertaking construction of any boundary, if so, then of course the petitioner will have to seek reliefs as per the remedies prescribed under law, however, if the respondent No.5 is stranger to the said land and has no right even prima facie, then the Sub Divisional 3 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 Magistrate concerned will be obliged to ensure protection of the petitioner's property. We, however, make it clear that we have not at all adjudicated the rights of the private parties in respect of the land in dispute and the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned shall also get the facts verified and do the needful only to the extent mentioned hereinabove but after hearing the respondent No.5 let this be done within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order produced before it.

3. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of."

4. It was contended that though the rights of opposite party no. 5, to whom notices were not issued, were protected by passing a conditional order and this Court made it very clear that it had not at all adjudicated the rights of the private parties in respect of the land in the dispute and that the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall get the facts verified to the extent mentioned in the said order after hearing the opposite party no. 5, in spite of it, the Tehsil authorities and the police authorities are adamant to harass the applicant - opposite party no. 5, hence, the application for recall of the said order.

5. After hearing the parties on the recall application on 10.07.2025, we had passed the following order: "Heard on the application for recall. Prima facie, the land in question which is the subject matter of this petition appears to have been the subject matter of earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing Writ-C no.763 of 2025. Both the petitions were / have been filed by same counsel Sri Satish Kumar Sharma. Put up this case along with records of Writ-C No.763 of 2025 on 23.07.2025. Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. He shall file an affidavit in response to the recall application. While filing a response on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, Advocate shall also ensure that an explanation is given as to how a second writ petition was maintainable and if we find that it was not maintainable and the order was obtained by deceit and concealment then why cost of at 4 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 least Rupees One Lakh be not imposed upon the petitioner or the counsel, as the case may be. Till the next date of listing, the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Writ-C No.1807 of 2025 shall remain in abeyance. Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the district authorities concerned."

6. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel, who had filed this petition, was also the counsel in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, bearing Writ C No. 763 of 2025, therefore, we had asked him specifically to file his own affidavit furnishing his explanation. Shri Sharma filed an affidavit, sworn on 21.07.2025, bearing his photograph, which is on record. On 09.09.2025, when this petition was listed along with the recall application, a mention was made in the morning by an Advocate, Shri Harendra Singh, whom we subsequently came to know was making the mention on behalf of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, for dismissing the petition as withdrawn. When such mentions are made in the morning, we make it a point to go through the record in the evening to ascertain as to whether there is anything in the order-sheet which may impede such withdrawal. It is then we found that there was an order dated 10.07.2025, as referred hereinabove, and the mention was being made taking advantage of the rush of work at mentioning time so as to escape from its rigour. Accordingly, we posted the matter on the next date when Shri Satish Kumar Sharma and Shri Harendrai Singh both appeared before us and then, on 10.09.2025, after hearing the parties, we passed the following order: "1. Yesterday, when the case was listed in the cause list, Shri Harendra Singh, Junior of Shri S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a mention in the morning at mentioning time that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn but he did not disclose the fact that we have passed certain orders on 10.07.2025 as under:- "(C.M. Application No.2 of 2025) 5 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 (C.M. Application No.3 of 2025) Heard on the application for recall. Prima facie, the land in question which is the subject matter of this petition appears to have been the subject matter of earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing Writ-C no.763 of 2025. Both the petitions were / have been filed by same counsel Sri Satish Kumar Sharma. Put up this case along with records of Writ-C No.763 of 2025 on 23.07.2025. Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. He shall file an affidavit in response to the recall application. While filing a response on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, Advocate shall also ensure that an explanation is given as to how a second writ petition was maintainable and if we find that it was not maintainable and the order was obtained by deceit and concealment then why cost of at least Rupees One Lakh be not imposed upon the petitioner or the counsel, as the case may be. Till the next date of listing, the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Writ-C No.1807 of 2025 shall remain in abeyance. Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the district authorities concerned."

2. We had noted that gross abuse of the process of law was involved and the petitioner's Counsel, Shri S.K. Sharma, had been ordered to file his own affidavit in the matter explaining the file of a second writ petition after dismissal of the first, that too, when a second appeal was pending in respect of the same subject matter. At the time of mentioning, this fact was not disclosed to the Court, this is how the matter was posted for today.

3. We have perused the earlier writ petition and the present writ petition, as also, the affidavit filed by Shri S.K. Sharma. We reserve our orders on the application for recall filed by opposite party no. 5, who was not heard when the writ petition was disposed of on 28.02.2025, and also, as regards the issue mentioned in the order dated 10.07.2025 i.e. abuse of the process of Court and concealment of the earlier writ petition filed by the same petitioner through the same Counsel.

4. Judgment / Order is reserved."

7. We reserved our judgment. 6 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025

8. We are quite pained at the manner in which an attempt was made to get the petition dismissed as withdrawn. It was the application for recall filed by opposite party no. 5 alone which was pending and not the writ petition, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner's counsel to make a mention for withdrawal of the writ petition which in fact had already been disposed of on 28.02.2025. This was a crude and unfair attempt to pre-empt consideration of the recall application wherein professional misconduct by the Advocate, Shri Satish Kumar Sharma as alleged, was an issue.

9. We have perused the records of the earlier writ petition and we find that the land in question in the first writ petition was the same which is subject matter of subsequent writ petition in which the recall application has been filed. However, even here there is a twist. The relief clause of the earlier petition reads as under: "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to :- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding the Opp. parties No. 1 to 4 to remove the illegal construction and encroachment of the opp. party no. 5 from स situated at village Malak, Tahsl Sarojani the land gata No. 152 Nagar, District Lucknow with immediate effect, and take appropriate and strict action against the opp. party No. 5 so that the petitioner could get justice. ii. Any other order or direction in which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii. Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner."

10. When we peruse the relief clause of the second writ petition, it reads as under: "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to :- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding the Opp. parties No. 1 to 4 to stop the illegal 7 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 construction of the opp. party no. 5 from the land of the petitioner bearing gata No. 152S situated at Habirpur Vijay Nagar Road Nilmatha, police Station Sushant Golf City, Tehsil Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow with immediate effect, and take appropriate and strict action against the opp. party No. 5 so that the petitioner could get justice. ii. Any other order or direction in which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii. Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner."

11. On a conjoint reading of the relief clauses of both the writ petitions, we find that the Gata number is the same, that is 152 स , however, the location of the Gata is mentioned differently. In the earlier writ petition it is mentioned as being situated at Village Malak, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow whereas in the second writ petition it is mentioned as situated at Habirpur, Vijay Nagar Road Neelmatha, Police Station Sushant Golf City, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. At first sight it would appear that though the Gata is the same, the location being different, it is possible that the plot of land is different. The counsel seeking recall invited our attention to Annexure-1 in both the writ स and it is the petitions which is khatauni pertaining to Gata No. 152 same khatauni which mentions the name of the Village Malak (Bijnore) and Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow. Clearly, an attempt has been made to hoodwink the Court into believing as if the plots of land are different otherwise the land in question is the same and the private opposite party against whom grievance has been raised is also the same. During course of hearing, we categorically asked Shri Sharma to please clarify as to what is the difference in the plots of the land, he accepted that the land in question in both the writ petitions was the same but due to inadvertence the details of the land were incorrectly mentioned in the relief clause of second writ petition. We do not accept this explanation at all. There are more than one reason for rejecting it. Firstly, the earlier writ petition was disposed of on 29.01.2025 in the following terms: 8 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 "1. Mr. Deep Narayan Tripathi, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 5 and filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner alleges interference in his possession in violation of status quo order passed in Second Appeal No. 117 of 2002, by the opposite party no. 5 in connivance with the district officials.

4. Learned standing counsel says that the land in question is a minjumla gata and the private opposite party no. 5 is also in possession.

5. Counsel for the opposite party no. 5 denies any illegal act.

6. The remedy is either in the pending second appeal or by taking recourse to any other process as may be prescribed in law.

7. This petition is not maintainable, certainly not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the disputed questions of fact involved. The petition is dismissed with liberty aforesaid."

12. Even at the cost of repetition it may be pointed out that Shri Satish Kumar Sharma appearing for the petitioner in the second writ petition was also her counsel in first writ petition. The petitioner, of course, was the same and the land was also the same as already observed.

13. As would be evident from a bare reading of the order dated

29.01.2025, the petitioner therein alleged violation of status quo order passed in Second Appeal No. 117 of 2002 by the opposite parties therein that is Gyanchand Yadav who is also the opposite party no. 5 in this writ petition who is seeking recall of the order dated 28.02.2025 passed herein.

14. The learned standing counsel made a statement in that case (first writ petition) that the land in question is "Minjumla Gata" that is, it is owned by more than one person and the private opposite party no. 5 is also in possession. The Court also noticed the contention of counsel for opposite party no. 5 that he was not indulging in any illegal act. Based on the aforesaid, a Coordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us (Rajan 9 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 Roy, J.) was a member observed that the remedy is either in pending Second Appeal or by taking recourse to any other process as may be prescribed in law. Accordingly, the writ petition was held to be not maintainable, certainly not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of disputed questions of fact involved, and it was dismissed subject to liberty aforesaid.

15. The Second Appeal, in fact, it appears, had been filed by the husband of the petitioner, who died and as per the affidavit in support of the application for recall filed after 10 years, an application for substitution was filed by the petitioner, which has been dismissed subsequently by the High Court in Second Appeal, but instead of challenging the said order or seeking remedies against it, the second writ petition was filed which apparently was not maintainable, especially as, none of the relevant facts in this regard were disclosed.

16. We have perused the memo of second writ petition bearing Writ C No. 1807 of 2025. As per Chapter XXII Rule 1 (3) (i) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, in the very first paragraph of the writ petition the petitioner is required to disclose any other writ petition which may have been filed on same facts and same cause of action, but, in this case, in spite of having filed a writ petition earlier bearing Writ C No. 763 of 2025, the same was not disclosed in paragraph 1; rather paragraph 1 of the second writ petition reads as under: "1. That petitioner in any capacity what-so-ever has not previously filed any other writ petition on the same manner or same facts and circumstances or same cause of action before this Hon'ble court either at Allahabad or at Lucknow, therefore, this is the First writ petition filed behalf of the petitioner."

17. Now, Shri Sharma himself says that the petitioner is an illiterate 68 years old lady, therefore, obviously she cannot be held responsible for this lapse and it is only the counsel who has done so and considering the number of years he has been practicing here, the conduct of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma who has filed the second writ petition without disclosing 10 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 the facutm of filing of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner through him is condemnable and worth deprecating.

18. Shri Sharma has tried to hoodwink and mislead the Court in not only entertaining the second writ petition but passing an order therein on

28.02.2025, that is, barely a month after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition. This apart, on a perusal of the pleading of the second writ petition, we find that there is no mention whatsoever of Second Appeal pending between the parties as referred hereinabove, notice of which had been taken in the order dated 29.01.2025 copy of which was not even annexed with the second writ petition.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, had himself disclosed the facutm of Second Appeal in the earlier writ petition and the orders passed therein, therefore, obviously he was aware of it, but, did not disclose it in this second writ petition by the same petitioner.

20. In the facts of this case, we have reason to believe that he deliberately did not do so. In this very context, we may refer to the affidavit filed by Shri Sharma, the said affidavit runs into 10 paragraphs, which read as under: "1. That the deponent is the practicing advocate of Hon'ble High Court.

2. That before making the submission in the instant affidavit, the deponent tenders unconditional apology for the occurred mistake, as pointed out in order dated 10/07/2025 of this Hon'ble Court. The copy of the order dated 10/07/2025 is being annexed as Annuexure No. 1 to this affidavit.

3. That the name of office clerk of deponent is Sri Satish Kumar Yadav.

4. That the petitioner Ramdeyi is previously known to the family of clerk Satish Kumar Yadav. The clerk of the deponent brought the case before the deponent and accordingly deponent drafted the writ petition and filed the same before this Hon'ble court which numbered as Writ C-762 of 2025. 11 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025

5. That the deponent argued the case and the Hon'ble court passed the order on 29.01.2025 by dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable on account of pendency of second appeal.

6. That the deponent is chronic sugar patient and sometimes the sugar becomes over 300. In January and February i.e., winters the sugar problem was persisting with high readings accordingly the deponent was not attending his office chamber regularly.

7. That since the matter was pertaining to the close person of deponent clerk Satish Kumar Yadav who inadvertently took out the print of another writ petition with minute changes from the computer and prepared the writ petition. The clerk told the deponent that land in earlier petition was Gata No. 152 Sa but the land of subsequent is Kata No. 129. Since the deponent was not feeling well at the relevant point of time therefor, upon his belief he put the signature.

8. That the matter was taken up on 28.02.2025, on that day the deponent was having much pain in his legs and drowsiness, therefore he could not appear in the writ petition on 28.02.2025. The copy of the order dated 28.02.2025 is being Annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit.

9. That the deponent has never committed such mistake earlier, and the mistake was merely human error on account of above said ailment of the deponent, for which the deponent tenders unconditional apology with folded hands.

10. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Dismiss the second writ Petition no. 1807 of 2025 in view of the facts as narrated."

21. Shri Sharma has admitted to the fact that he has filed the earlier petition bearing Writ C No. 763 of 2025, and also that the petition was dismissed on 29.01.2025. The only explanation offered by him is that he is a chronic sugar patient which shoots up in winters, on account of which he was not attending his office chamber regularly and, as, the petitioner was known to his clerk, Shri Satish Kumar Yadav, who, that is the Clerk, inadvertently took out the printout of another writ petition with minute changes from the computer and prepared the second petition. He has tried to explain that the land in the earlier petition was Gata No. 152 स , but, the land of the subsequent petition is Gata No. 129. However, he has not annexed any records to show that there is any such 12 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 Gata No. 129 situated at the place mentioned in the relief clause of the second writ petition, in respect of which the petitioner, Ramdeyi wife of late Sukhdev may be recorded and in respect of which also the Opposite Party No.5, Gyan Chand Yadav, who was an opposite party in the earlier petition, may have encroached it, just as the allegation the first writ petition against him. There is nothing mentioned in his affidavit in this regard. The explanation offered is unacceptable.

22. We have perused the records of second writ petition and find that not only the petitioner is same, the affidavit in the second petition is also of Ramdeyi wife of late Sukhdev, just as it was in the first writ petition. Moreover, the khatauni annexed with the second writ petition is also the same as the one annexed with the first writ petition. Further, the subsequent conduct in attempting to get the petition dismissed as withdrawn at mentioning time in the morning, just after start of Court proceedings, through his junior Shri Harendra Singh, though it already stood disposed off and was not pending and it is the application for recall of the order dated 28.02.2025 filed by opposite party no. 5 alone which was pending, without disclosing the interim orders passed on the recall application, itself shows the ill intent on the part of Shri Sharma. If request made on behalf of Shri Shamra was accepted it would have veritably meant withdrawal/rejection of the application of recall filed by opposite party no. 5 and restoration of the interim order passed therein. Such a request could not have been made on behalf of Shri Sharma who was counsel for the petitioner.

23. For all these reasons, the explanation offered by him is rejected. We deprecate the conduct of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma. The application for condonation of delay i.e. C.M. Application No. 3 of 2025 is allowed. The delay in filing the recall application is condoned. The application for recall i.e. C.M. Application No. 2 of 2025 is also allowed. The order dated 28.02.2025 is hereby recalled. Writ C No. 1807 of 2025 is restored to its original number. As the second writ petition is not maintainable, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, this order shall not prejudice 13 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 the rights, if any, of the petitioner herein to challenge any order passed in Second Appeal dismissing her application for substitution or in pursuing the Second Appeal if the occasion so rises nor will this order confer any right upon opposite party no. 5 to occupy any land if he does not have any right or interest therein, or if he is in illegal or unauthorised occupation. This is for the reason, from a reading of the judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate court in the appeal arising out of the civil suit proceedings filed by the petitioner's husband - Sukhev, there is a finding that the land in question stands vested in the State. It has nowhere been stated by the opposite party no. 5 that said finding or judgment has been challenged by him. Nevertheless, our order by itself will neither confer any right upon opposite party no. 5 in this regard nor will it divest him of any right if he has one. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Collector, Lucknow and the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, with liberty to get the facts verified as to whether the land has vested in the Government, if so, whether any action is required and take such action as may be required in law after hearing the opposite party no. 5.

24. The only reason we are not imposing any cost upon Shri Satish Kumar Sharma nor are recommending proceedings against him to the Bar Council in the solemn hope that as a Member of the Bar he shall not conduct himself in the manner in which he has done in this case and shall not give us another opportunity to pass any stringent order against him.

25. A copy of this order shall be communicated by the Senior Registrar of this Court at Lucknow to Shri Satish Kumar Sharma (AOR No. B/S 0455). October 15, 2025 Santosh/- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

"1. Mr. Deep Narayan Tripathi, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 5 and filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner alleges interference in his possession in violation of status quo order passed in Second Appeal No. 117 of 2002, by the opposite party no. 5 in connivance with the district officials.

4. Learned standing counsel says that the land in question is a minjumla gata and the private opposite party no. 5 is also in possession.

5. Counsel for the opposite party no. 5 denies any illegal act.

6. The remedy is either in the pending second appeal or by taking recourse to any other process as may be prescribed in law.

7. This petition is not maintainable, certainly not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the disputed questions of fact involved. The petition is dismissed with liberty aforesaid."

3. Without disclosing the aforesaid facts and the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in the earlier petition, the second writ petition has been filed in respect of the same land, which was disposed of by this Court on

28.02.2025 in the following terms: "1. None appears for the petitioner, the case is backlog fresh, however, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is present.

2. The allegation is that respondent No.5 is constructing some boundary on the Bhumidhari land of the petitioner. The petitioner may approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, who may get the facts verified as to whether the respondent No.5 is claiming any rights on the land on which he is alleged to be undertaking construction of any boundary, if so, then of course the petitioner will have to seek reliefs as per the remedies prescribed under law, however, if the respondent No.5 is stranger to the said land and has no right even prima facie, then the Sub Divisional 3 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 Magistrate concerned will be obliged to ensure protection of the petitioner's property. We, however, make it clear that we have not at all adjudicated the rights of the private parties in respect of the land in dispute and the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned shall also get the facts verified and do the needful only to the extent mentioned hereinabove but after hearing the respondent No.5 let this be done within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order produced before it.

3. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of."

4. It was contended that though the rights of opposite party no. 5, to whom notices were not issued, were protected by passing a conditional order and this Court made it very clear that it had not at all adjudicated the rights of the private parties in respect of the land in the dispute and that the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall get the facts verified to the extent mentioned in the said order after hearing the opposite party no. 5, in spite of it, the Tehsil authorities and the police authorities are adamant to harass the applicant - opposite party no. 5, hence, the application for recall of the said order.

5. After hearing the parties on the recall application on 10.07.2025, we had passed the following order: "Heard on the application for recall. Prima facie, the land in question which is the subject matter of this petition appears to have been the subject matter of earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing Writ-C no.763 of 2025. Both the petitions were / have been filed by same counsel Sri Satish Kumar Sharma. Put up this case along with records of Writ-C No.763 of 2025 on 23.07.2025. Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. He shall file an affidavit in response to the recall application. While filing a response on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, Advocate shall also ensure that an explanation is given as to how a second writ petition was maintainable and if we find that it was not maintainable and the order was obtained by deceit and concealment then why cost of at 4 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 least Rupees One Lakh be not imposed upon the petitioner or the counsel, as the case may be. Till the next date of listing, the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Writ-C No.1807 of 2025 shall remain in abeyance. Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the district authorities concerned."

6. Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel, who had filed this petition, was also the counsel in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, bearing Writ C No. 763 of 2025, therefore, we had asked him specifically to file his own affidavit furnishing his explanation. Shri Sharma filed an affidavit, sworn on 21.07.2025, bearing his photograph, which is on record. On 09.09.2025, when this petition was listed along with the recall application, a mention was made in the morning by an Advocate, Shri Harendra Singh, whom we subsequently came to know was making the mention on behalf of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, for dismissing the petition as withdrawn. When such mentions are made in the morning, we make it a point to go through the record in the evening to ascertain as to whether there is anything in the order-sheet which may impede such withdrawal. It is then we found that there was an order dated 10.07.2025, as referred hereinabove, and the mention was being made taking advantage of the rush of work at mentioning time so as to escape from its rigour. Accordingly, we posted the matter on the next date when Shri Satish Kumar Sharma and Shri Harendrai Singh both appeared before us and then, on 10.09.2025, after hearing the parties, we passed the following order: "1. Yesterday, when the case was listed in the cause list, Shri Harendra Singh, Junior of Shri S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a mention in the morning at mentioning time that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn but he did not disclose the fact that we have passed certain orders on 10.07.2025 as under:- "(C.M. Application No.2 of 2025) 5 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 (C.M. Application No.3 of 2025) Heard on the application for recall. Prima facie, the land in question which is the subject matter of this petition appears to have been the subject matter of earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing Writ-C no.763 of 2025. Both the petitions were / have been filed by same counsel Sri Satish Kumar Sharma. Put up this case along with records of Writ-C No.763 of 2025 on 23.07.2025. Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. He shall file an affidavit in response to the recall application. While filing a response on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, Advocate shall also ensure that an explanation is given as to how a second writ petition was maintainable and if we find that it was not maintainable and the order was obtained by deceit and concealment then why cost of at least Rupees One Lakh be not imposed upon the petitioner or the counsel, as the case may be. Till the next date of listing, the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Writ-C No.1807 of 2025 shall remain in abeyance. Sri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the district authorities concerned."

2. We had noted that gross abuse of the process of law was involved and the petitioner's Counsel, Shri S.K. Sharma, had been ordered to file his own affidavit in the matter explaining the file of a second writ petition after dismissal of the first, that too, when a second appeal was pending in respect of the same subject matter. At the time of mentioning, this fact was not disclosed to the Court, this is how the matter was posted for today.

3. We have perused the earlier writ petition and the present writ petition, as also, the affidavit filed by Shri S.K. Sharma. We reserve our orders on the application for recall filed by opposite party no. 5, who was not heard when the writ petition was disposed of on 28.02.2025, and also, as regards the issue mentioned in the order dated 10.07.2025 i.e. abuse of the process of Court and concealment of the earlier writ petition filed by the same petitioner through the same Counsel.

4. Judgment / Order is reserved."

7. We reserved our judgment. 6 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025

8. We are quite pained at the manner in which an attempt was made to get the petition dismissed as withdrawn. It was the application for recall filed by opposite party no. 5 alone which was pending and not the writ petition, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner's counsel to make a mention for withdrawal of the writ petition which in fact had already been disposed of on 28.02.2025. This was a crude and unfair attempt to pre-empt consideration of the recall application wherein professional misconduct by the Advocate, Shri Satish Kumar Sharma as alleged, was an issue.

9. We have perused the records of the earlier writ petition and we find that the land in question in the first writ petition was the same which is subject matter of subsequent writ petition in which the recall application has been filed. However, even here there is a twist. The relief clause of the earlier petition reads as under: "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to :- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding the Opp. parties No. 1 to 4 to remove the illegal construction and encroachment of the opp. party no. 5 from स situated at village Malak, Tahsl Sarojani the land gata No. 152 Nagar, District Lucknow with immediate effect, and take appropriate and strict action against the opp. party No. 5 so that the petitioner could get justice. ii. Any other order or direction in which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii. Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner."

10. When we peruse the relief clause of the second writ petition, it reads as under: "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to :- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding the Opp. parties No. 1 to 4 to stop the illegal 7 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 construction of the opp. party no. 5 from the land of the petitioner bearing gata No. 152S situated at Habirpur Vijay Nagar Road Nilmatha, police Station Sushant Golf City, Tehsil Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow with immediate effect, and take appropriate and strict action against the opp. party No. 5 so that the petitioner could get justice. ii. Any other order or direction in which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii. Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner."

11. On a conjoint reading of the relief clauses of both the writ petitions, we find that the Gata number is the same, that is 152 स , however, the location of the Gata is mentioned differently. In the earlier writ petition it is mentioned as being situated at Village Malak, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow whereas in the second writ petition it is mentioned as situated at Habirpur, Vijay Nagar Road Neelmatha, Police Station Sushant Golf City, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. At first sight it would appear that though the Gata is the same, the location being different, it is possible that the plot of land is different. The counsel seeking recall invited our attention to Annexure-1 in both the writ स and it is the petitions which is khatauni pertaining to Gata No. 152 same khatauni which mentions the name of the Village Malak (Bijnore) and Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow. Clearly, an attempt has been made to hoodwink the Court into believing as if the plots of land are different otherwise the land in question is the same and the private opposite party against whom grievance has been raised is also the same. During course of hearing, we categorically asked Shri Sharma to please clarify as to what is the difference in the plots of the land, he accepted that the land in question in both the writ petitions was the same but due to inadvertence the details of the land were incorrectly mentioned in the relief clause of second writ petition. We do not accept this explanation at all. There are more than one reason for rejecting it. Firstly, the earlier writ petition was disposed of on 29.01.2025 in the following terms: 8 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 "1. Mr. Deep Narayan Tripathi, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 5 and filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner alleges interference in his possession in violation of status quo order passed in Second Appeal No. 117 of 2002, by the opposite party no. 5 in connivance with the district officials.

4. Learned standing counsel says that the land in question is a minjumla gata and the private opposite party no. 5 is also in possession.

5. Counsel for the opposite party no. 5 denies any illegal act.

6. The remedy is either in the pending second appeal or by taking recourse to any other process as may be prescribed in law.

7. This petition is not maintainable, certainly not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the disputed questions of fact involved. The petition is dismissed with liberty aforesaid."

12. Even at the cost of repetition it may be pointed out that Shri Satish Kumar Sharma appearing for the petitioner in the second writ petition was also her counsel in first writ petition. The petitioner, of course, was the same and the land was also the same as already observed.

13. As would be evident from a bare reading of the order dated

29.01.2025, the petitioner therein alleged violation of status quo order passed in Second Appeal No. 117 of 2002 by the opposite parties therein that is Gyanchand Yadav who is also the opposite party no. 5 in this writ petition who is seeking recall of the order dated 28.02.2025 passed herein.

14. The learned standing counsel made a statement in that case (first writ petition) that the land in question is "Minjumla Gata" that is, it is owned by more than one person and the private opposite party no. 5 is also in possession. The Court also noticed the contention of counsel for opposite party no. 5 that he was not indulging in any illegal act. Based on the aforesaid, a Coordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us (Rajan 9 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 Roy, J.) was a member observed that the remedy is either in pending Second Appeal or by taking recourse to any other process as may be prescribed in law. Accordingly, the writ petition was held to be not maintainable, certainly not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of disputed questions of fact involved, and it was dismissed subject to liberty aforesaid.

15. The Second Appeal, in fact, it appears, had been filed by the husband of the petitioner, who died and as per the affidavit in support of the application for recall filed after 10 years, an application for substitution was filed by the petitioner, which has been dismissed subsequently by the High Court in Second Appeal, but instead of challenging the said order or seeking remedies against it, the second writ petition was filed which apparently was not maintainable, especially as, none of the relevant facts in this regard were disclosed.

16. We have perused the memo of second writ petition bearing Writ C No. 1807 of 2025. As per Chapter XXII Rule 1 (3) (i) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, in the very first paragraph of the writ petition the petitioner is required to disclose any other writ petition which may have been filed on same facts and same cause of action, but, in this case, in spite of having filed a writ petition earlier bearing Writ C No. 763 of 2025, the same was not disclosed in paragraph 1; rather paragraph 1 of the second writ petition reads as under: "1. That petitioner in any capacity what-so-ever has not previously filed any other writ petition on the same manner or same facts and circumstances or same cause of action before this Hon'ble court either at Allahabad or at Lucknow, therefore, this is the First writ petition filed behalf of the petitioner."

17. Now, Shri Sharma himself says that the petitioner is an illiterate 68 years old lady, therefore, obviously she cannot be held responsible for this lapse and it is only the counsel who has done so and considering the number of years he has been practicing here, the conduct of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma who has filed the second writ petition without disclosing 10 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 the facutm of filing of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner through him is condemnable and worth deprecating.

18. Shri Sharma has tried to hoodwink and mislead the Court in not only entertaining the second writ petition but passing an order therein on

28.02.2025, that is, barely a month after the dismissal of the earlier writ petition. This apart, on a perusal of the pleading of the second writ petition, we find that there is no mention whatsoever of Second Appeal pending between the parties as referred hereinabove, notice of which had been taken in the order dated 29.01.2025 copy of which was not even annexed with the second writ petition.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, had himself disclosed the facutm of Second Appeal in the earlier writ petition and the orders passed therein, therefore, obviously he was aware of it, but, did not disclose it in this second writ petition by the same petitioner.

20. In the facts of this case, we have reason to believe that he deliberately did not do so. In this very context, we may refer to the affidavit filed by Shri Sharma, the said affidavit runs into 10 paragraphs, which read as under: "1. That the deponent is the practicing advocate of Hon'ble High Court.

2. That before making the submission in the instant affidavit, the deponent tenders unconditional apology for the occurred mistake, as pointed out in order dated 10/07/2025 of this Hon'ble Court. The copy of the order dated 10/07/2025 is being annexed as Annuexure No. 1 to this affidavit.

3. That the name of office clerk of deponent is Sri Satish Kumar Yadav.

4. That the petitioner Ramdeyi is previously known to the family of clerk Satish Kumar Yadav. The clerk of the deponent brought the case before the deponent and accordingly deponent drafted the writ petition and filed the same before this Hon'ble court which numbered as Writ C-762 of 2025. 11 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025

5. That the deponent argued the case and the Hon'ble court passed the order on 29.01.2025 by dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable on account of pendency of second appeal.

6. That the deponent is chronic sugar patient and sometimes the sugar becomes over 300. In January and February i.e., winters the sugar problem was persisting with high readings accordingly the deponent was not attending his office chamber regularly.

7. That since the matter was pertaining to the close person of deponent clerk Satish Kumar Yadav who inadvertently took out the print of another writ petition with minute changes from the computer and prepared the writ petition. The clerk told the deponent that land in earlier petition was Gata No. 152 Sa but the land of subsequent is Kata No. 129. Since the deponent was not feeling well at the relevant point of time therefor, upon his belief he put the signature.

8. That the matter was taken up on 28.02.2025, on that day the deponent was having much pain in his legs and drowsiness, therefore he could not appear in the writ petition on 28.02.2025. The copy of the order dated 28.02.2025 is being Annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this affidavit.

9. That the deponent has never committed such mistake earlier, and the mistake was merely human error on account of above said ailment of the deponent, for which the deponent tenders unconditional apology with folded hands.

10. That the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to Dismiss the second writ Petition no. 1807 of 2025 in view of the facts as narrated."

21. Shri Sharma has admitted to the fact that he has filed the earlier petition bearing Writ C No. 763 of 2025, and also that the petition was dismissed on 29.01.2025. The only explanation offered by him is that he is a chronic sugar patient which shoots up in winters, on account of which he was not attending his office chamber regularly and, as, the petitioner was known to his clerk, Shri Satish Kumar Yadav, who, that is the Clerk, inadvertently took out the printout of another writ petition with minute changes from the computer and prepared the second petition. He has tried to explain that the land in the earlier petition was Gata No. 152 स , but, the land of the subsequent petition is Gata No. 129. However, he has not annexed any records to show that there is any such 12 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 Gata No. 129 situated at the place mentioned in the relief clause of the second writ petition, in respect of which the petitioner, Ramdeyi wife of late Sukhdev may be recorded and in respect of which also the Opposite Party No.5, Gyan Chand Yadav, who was an opposite party in the earlier petition, may have encroached it, just as the allegation the first writ petition against him. There is nothing mentioned in his affidavit in this regard. The explanation offered is unacceptable.

22. We have perused the records of second writ petition and find that not only the petitioner is same, the affidavit in the second petition is also of Ramdeyi wife of late Sukhdev, just as it was in the first writ petition. Moreover, the khatauni annexed with the second writ petition is also the same as the one annexed with the first writ petition. Further, the subsequent conduct in attempting to get the petition dismissed as withdrawn at mentioning time in the morning, just after start of Court proceedings, through his junior Shri Harendra Singh, though it already stood disposed off and was not pending and it is the application for recall of the order dated 28.02.2025 filed by opposite party no. 5 alone which was pending, without disclosing the interim orders passed on the recall application, itself shows the ill intent on the part of Shri Sharma. If request made on behalf of Shri Shamra was accepted it would have veritably meant withdrawal/rejection of the application of recall filed by opposite party no. 5 and restoration of the interim order passed therein. Such a request could not have been made on behalf of Shri Sharma who was counsel for the petitioner.

23. For all these reasons, the explanation offered by him is rejected. We deprecate the conduct of Shri Satish Kumar Sharma. The application for condonation of delay i.e. C.M. Application No. 3 of 2025 is allowed. The delay in filing the recall application is condoned. The application for recall i.e. C.M. Application No. 2 of 2025 is also allowed. The order dated 28.02.2025 is hereby recalled. Writ C No. 1807 of 2025 is restored to its original number. As the second writ petition is not maintainable, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, this order shall not prejudice 13 WRIC No. - 1807 of 2025 the rights, if any, of the petitioner herein to challenge any order passed in Second Appeal dismissing her application for substitution or in pursuing the Second Appeal if the occasion so rises nor will this order confer any right upon opposite party no. 5 to occupy any land if he does not have any right or interest therein, or if he is in illegal or unauthorised occupation. This is for the reason, from a reading of the judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate court in the appeal arising out of the civil suit proceedings filed by the petitioner's husband - Sukhev, there is a finding that the land in question stands vested in the State. It has nowhere been stated by the opposite party no. 5 that said finding or judgment has been challenged by him. Nevertheless, our order by itself will neither confer any right upon opposite party no. 5 in this regard nor will it divest him of any right if he has one. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Collector, Lucknow and the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, with liberty to get the facts verified as to whether the land has vested in the Government, if so, whether any action is required and take such action as may be required in law after hearing the opposite party no. 5.

24. The only reason we are not imposing any cost upon Shri Satish Kumar Sharma nor are recommending proceedings against him to the Bar Council in the solemn hope that as a Member of the Bar he shall not conduct himself in the manner in which he has done in this case and shall not give us another opportunity to pass any stringent order against him.

25. A copy of this order shall be communicated by the Senior Registrar of this Court at Lucknow to Shri Satish Kumar Sharma (AOR No. B/S 0455). October 15, 2025 Santosh/- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)