Pankaj Mittal vs State of Uttarakhand Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority and M/s International Associate

Hon''ble B.S. Verma, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6-1-2011 passed by the revisional authority-Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand (respondent no.1), whereby the map of the respondent no.3 was directed to be sanctioned excluding the disputed property. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, in brief, are that the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit bearing O.S. No. 478 of 2009, Ram Kishan Mittal v. M/s International Associate and another in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) after hearing the parties disposed of the temporary injunction application (paper no. 6-C2) and directed the defendant no.1-respondent no.3 not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner and also directed the respondent no.2-MDDA not to sanction the map with regard to disputed property against the law. According to the petitioner, disputed property was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 21-4-1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) area 90 Sq.Mt. The petitioner has also annexed the copy of the plaint and the plaint map as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In the plaint map, the disputed area has been decribed by the petitioner-plaintiff in detail.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 declined to sanction the map of the respondent no.3 till the pendency of the civil suit by order dated 13-8-2010. Against the order of the M.D.D.A., the respondent no.3 preferred a revision before the respondent no.1-Additional Secretary.

The revisional authority has observed in the revision that there is no direction of the civil court not to sanction the map. Ultimately by order dated 6-1-2011, the revision has been allowed and the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority was directed to proceed further to sanction the map filed by the respondent no.3.

By a perusal of the order passed by the civil court, it reveals that the Court had directed that the map should not be sanctioned against law. Before the revisional court also, the respondent no.3 made a statement that the map be sanctioned after excluding the area claimed by the petitioner in the aforesaid civil suit.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3. In paragraph no. 12 and 13, the following averments have been made:-

That although there was no injunction restraining the MDDA from granting any sanction over the property described in schedule of the Plaint, but to avoid any unnecessary controversy and harassment, the Respondent no.3 had excluded the property claimed by the Petitioner''s father and which was shown by red colour in the plan attached with the Plaint and the portion claimed as common passage as shown by yellow colour in the plaint map was also shown as common passage for the purpose of sanction of the map. No prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner. True and exact copy of the sanctioned map is enclosed and marked as Annexure 5 herewith.

That after the portion claimed by the Petitioner was excluded from the sanction map the Petitioner does not have locus standi or right to object to the sanctioned map. Even otherwise, the controversy is subject matter of OS No. 478 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Dehradun.

In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has given evasive reply. There is no specific mention that the area claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner was included in the map and that the construction is being made by respondent no.3 thereon. Moreover, Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 has submitted that the respondent no.3 is not raising any construction on the land in question, which is subject matter of the said civil suit.

Since the petitioner is not affected by the impugned order in view of the averments made in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit reproduced above showing that the area claimed by the petitioner was not included in the sanctioned map and no constructions are being carried out by the respondent no.3, as has been stated in the counter affidavit.

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, the respondent no. 3 is directed to comply the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun passed in Original Suit No. 478 of 2009 Sri Ram Kishan Mittal v. M/s International Associate and another. All pending applications stand disposed of.