AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 267 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
According to the petitioner, there is a Mango Orchard standing over the land, which earlier belonged to Mr. Dinanath and the persons who have purchased the said land are now cutting the mango trees.
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to decide the representation/complaint of petitioner and to take action regarding the illegal activity of ruining/destroying the Mango Orchard situated over Khasra No. 163 and 174m total measuring 2.93 hectares (around 42 Bigha) Village Simloni Manglaur Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to restrain the developers/builders from further cutting down the tree situated over Mango Orchard Khasra No. 163 and 174m total measuring 2.93 hectares (around 42 Bigha) Village Simloni Manglaur Tehsil roorkee District Haridwar."
In para no. 7 of the writ petition, it has been admitted that permission for felling 29 mango trees was obtained by the owner of the said property. The only allegation made in the writ petition is that more number of mango trees are being cut. Neither the original owner of the property nor the purchaser thereof, have been impleaded as party in the writ petition. Petitioner appears to be a busybody, who wants to settle his personal score, by filing this writ petition.
Since petitioner does not have locus standi to maintain this writ petition, accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.