Niwas Agrawal vs State of U.P.and Others

The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus restraining the respondents, their officers, servants or agents from interfering with his possession including his factory standing on plot Nos. 833, 834, 836,837, 838, 839, 840,841,842,843,844,845,846,847,848, 849,850, 851,852,854,855, 857,858,802 and 803 of village Bagdandi Kachchar, district Kanpur Nagar or from taking out any road through the aforesaid plots.

In paragraph 5 of the writ petition is has been disclosed that in his original suit No. 1258 of 1991 on 30101991 Civil Judge, Kanpur had passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo, which still operates. In paragraph No. 7 it has been further stated that proceedings in contempt was also initiated against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the reasons stated in paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition it has been further stated that the petitioner has come to know that the Collector, Kanpur Nagar has secretly permitted respondent No. 4 Krishi Utpadan Samiti, Kanpur Nagar to take out the road at its own costs. In paragraph No. 14 it has been further asserted that attempt was made to demolish the existing boundary wall of the petitioner. In paragraph No. 18 it has been further asserted that sincethere is no such speedy, efficacious and alternative remedy, hence the petitioner is invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Having heard various learned Counsel appearing on behalf of one or other party we are of the view that in view of the fact that the petitioner has already moved Civil Court, which has also granted interim relief to the petitioner, which has full jurisdiction even to grant mandatory injunction if an appropriate case is made out before it, this Court will not be justified in invoking its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

We, accordingly dismiss this writ petition.

We also put on record the stand taken by some persons who had sought interventions that since the land in question is Gaon Sabha land, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief even from the Civil Court though this fact is being denied by Sri Mohd. Arif, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner holding brief of Sri Ravi Kant, which is also according to him stand supported by the document appended as C.A.2.

The office is directed to handover a copy of this order to Sri P.K. Bisariya, learned standing Counsel for its intimation to the authority concerned.

The petition for impleadment also stands rejected since we have dismissed the writ petition. Petition dismissed.