Salauddin v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2023 of 2022 Petitioner :- Salauddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abdul Majeed,Arun Kumar Pandey,Sufia Saba Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sufia Saba, learned counsel for contesting respondent.

¶2This Court has passed following order on 11.10.2022 :- "Grievance of the petitioner is that the Consolidation Officer has illegally passed an order to delete his name from plot no. 105 measuring area 0.012 hectare and plot no. 107 measuring area 0.287 hectare and the same was illegally affirmed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner by approval order dated 24.01.1990. Aforesaid allotment still stands and the same has not been challenged before any competent court. The Consolidation Officer, on the basis of the ex parte report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, has passed ex parte order dated 15.11.2007 expunging the name of the petitioner from revenue record treating the land in question as Pond under Class 6(1). One of the ground has also been taken by the Consolidation Officer to the effect that there is double entry of plot no. 105 measuring area 0.012 hectare in two khatas i.e. khata nos. 102 and 107. In appeal, specific plea has been taken by the petitioner that land in question was never recorded as a pond. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has decided the appeal without adverting to the said plea as raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is next submitted that original record has never been summoned by the consolidation courts to verify the factum of the entry of pond, however, the matter has been decided only on the basis of the report submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has simply affirmed the order passed by the courts subordinate without verifying the facts from the original record and without adverting to the grievance of the petitioner. Matter requires consideration. Respondents no. 1 to 4 are represented through the learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for Gaon Sabha-respondent no. 5 is present. List this matter on 05.12.2022. In the meantime, parties shall exchange their respective affidavits. Till the next date of listing, parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to possession and nature of the land in question. "

¶3The Court has asked following specific query to counsel for petitioner that :-

(i) Whether a copy of alleged 'Patta' is enclosed with this writ petition?

(ii) Whether details mentioned in impugned order such as 'Akar Patra' as well as basis of submission that there were double entry are enclosed with this writ petition?

¶4The answer for above referred queries remained in negative.

¶5It is also pointed out by learned Standing Counsel for State as well as counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in connected PIL (bearing No. 2497 of 2023) that there is already an order against applicant in a proceeding under Section 67 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 dated 18.08.2023, however, the same has also not been brought on record by filing an affidavit.

¶6In the aforesaid circumstances, since petitioner has not come up with clear hand and suppressed material facts before this Court and since it is well settled that petitioner who sought to invoke writ jurisdiction has to come with clean hand. In this regard few paragraphs of a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and two others, 2023:AHC:193413, being relevant are mentioned hereinafter :- "५. वविश्ललेषण वि वनिष्कषर

(क). जजैससा पपूविर मम उललेखखित वकयसा गयसा हजै, यसावचिकसा कतसार निले वितरमसानि यसावचिकसा मम सम्पपूणर तथ्योሱ कसा एविवं उनिसले सवंबवंखधित आदलेशोሱ ककी ्ቚवत कले ससाथ उललेखि निहही वकयसा हजै। आदलेश वदनिसावंक

२०.०२.९६ वि ०३.०९.९६ ककी ्ቚवत भही यसावचिकसा कले ससाथ सवंल्ሿ निहही हजै। ससाथ हही ससाथ आदलेश वदनिसावंक २०.१२.२००० ककी ्ቚवत भही उपलब्धि निहही हजै। और नि हही ददोनिदो वनिगरसानिही ककी ्ቚवत सवंल्ሿ हजै। यसावचिकसा मम दपूसरही वनिगरसानिही कले सवंबवंधि मम स्प्ቖ रूप सले कदोई उललेखि भही निहही वकयसा हजै। यसाचिही निले अपनिही इच्छसानिनुससार तथ्योሱ कसा उललेखि वकयसा हजै और इच्छसानिनुससार तथ्योሱ कदो छनुपसायसा यसा स्प्ቖ रूप सले उललेखि निहही वकयसा हजै। यह ककत्य अ्ቚशवंसनिहीय हजै। (खि). इस स्तर पर उच्चितम न्यसायसालय दसारसा पसाररत वकयले गयले वनिणरय शही कले जयरसाम वि अन्य्ቚ वत बबगलदोर डलेविलपममट अथथॉररटही वि अन्य : (२०२२) १२ एस सही सही ८१५ सले वनिम्नि अवंश कसा उललेखि करनिसा महत्विपपूणर हदोगसाग- " ३८-….स्थसावपत वविखधि कले अनिनुससार,जदो प्ቌ सवंवविधिसानि कले अनिनुच्छलेद ३२ कले अवंतगरत इस न्यसायसालय यसा अनिनुच्छलेद २२६ कले अवंतगरत उच्चि न्यसायसालय कले अससाधिसारण ्ቌलेतसाखधिकसार कदो आहहत करतसा हजै, तदो यह मसानिसा जसातसा हजै वक विदो सत्यविसादही, स्प्ቖविसादही और वविवितर हदोगसा। उसले वबनिसा वकसही वनि्ቇह सले सभही विस्तनुगत तथ्योሱ कदो उदसावटत करनिसा चिसावहए, भलले हही विले उसकले वविरु्ቍ होሱ । उसकदो तथ्योሱ ककी 'छनुपसा-छनुपही' (हसाईड एवंड सहीक) खिलेलनिले यसा उनिकसा 'चियनि और चिनुनिनिले' (वपक एवंड चिपूज) करनिले ककी अनिनुमवत निहीሻ दही जसा सकतही, खजन्हम विह ्ቚकट और छनुपसानिसा (पदसार डसालनिसा) यसा विदो अन्य तथ्य खजनिकदो उदसावटत निहीሻ करनिसा (वछपसानिसा) पसवंद करतसा हजै। आजसापत ्ቌलेतसाखधिकसार कसा मपूल आधिसार, सत्य वि पपूणर (सहही) तथ्योሱ कले ्ቚकटनि पर आधिसाररत हजै।अगर विस्तनुगत तथ्य छनुपसायले यसा वविककत वकयले जसातले हजै तदो आजसापत न्यसायसालय ककी कसायरविसाहही हही और उपयदोग असवंभवि हदो जसायलेगसा । यसावचिकसाकतसार कदो वबनिसा वकसही वनि्ቇह कले विसावंवछत अनिनुतदोष पर ्ቚभसावि कसाररत करनिले विसालले सभही तथ्योሱ कदो अविश्य हही उदसावटत करनिसा हजै।ऐससा इसखलए क्योሱवक "न्यसायसालय वविखधि कदो तदो जसानितसा हजै ललेवकनि तथ्योሱ कदो निहीሻ।" (दलेखिले : शही कले जयरसाम वि अन्य ्ቚवत बबगलदोर डलेविलपममट अथथॉररटही वि अन्य : (२०२२) १२ एस सही सही ८१५ ) कसा ्ቚस्तर सवंख्यसा ३८) "

¶7The Court is of considered opinion that since petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10000/- to be deposited by petitioner in favour of District Legal Services Authority, Amroha within three weeks from today.

¶8Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated. Order Date :- 1.12.2023 P. Pandey High Court of Judicature at Allahabad