Ramdeo vs U.P. Awas Vikas Parishad and Others

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

These two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner.

In the first writ petition the petitioner has payed for a mandamus directing the respondents to stop the construction over the Plot Arazi No. 437/0.405 and 441/2.231 of the petitioner''s forthwith till the disposal of the revision pending before the Revenue Court and in the subsequent writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proposal dated 23/6/2011 and order dated 02/7/2011 by which a proposal was made for proposing the land Nos.437 and 441 for construction of houses under Shri Kanshi Ramji Shahri Garib Awas Yojana. By subsequent order dated 02/7/2011, the Collector has resumed the land for the aforesaid purposes. The petitioner''s case in the writ petition is that allotment was made to him of Plot Nos. 441/0.231 hectare and 437ka/1-416 hectare for plantation of trees. The said allotment was cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate u/s 198 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 vide order dated 20/8/2010. Petitioner has already filed a revision No. 268/2010 before the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi which revision is said to be pending. Petitioner has come up in the writ petition with the aforesaid reliefs.

Learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out that a Suit No. 912/2007 has been filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division by the son of the petitioner Manoj Kumar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said suit relates to another plot.

From the materials brought on the record, it is clear that the lease for plantation of trees in favour of the petitioner was cancelled u/s 198 (4) of the Act, 1950 vide order dated 20/8/2010 against which the revision has been filed which is pending. It is not the case of the petitioner that any interim order has been passed in the said revision. The allotment having been cancelled and there being no interim order from the revisional court, we see no right in the petitioner to pray for the reliefs as claimed in the writ petitions. The remedy of the petitioner is to make an application for such relief as may be permissible in the pending revision before the Additional Commissioner.

With the aforesaid observation, both the writ petitions are dismissed.