Dismissed

Smk Petrochemical India Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2019WRIC/25619/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by petitioners seeking protection for crop sowing and harvesting on disputed land. The court held the petition not maintainable as the identical relief was already sought in a pending civil suit, noting such possession disputes fall under civil court jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with an observation that the same relief was already sought in a pending civil suit.

Smk Petrochemical India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs State… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25619 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Smk Petrochemical India Pvt Ltd And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar,Arun Kumar Gupta(Senior Adv.)

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶8

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶10

This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

¶11

“I. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the protection and security to the petitioners for making sowing of the crop and harvesting of the crop of the land belonging to petitoner's Khata No. 41 Khasra No. 1/6 area 13.0130 Hectare and Khasra No. 23/5 area 0.8980 Hectare Village Bhagwanpur Khadar Pragana Kithor Tehsil Mawana District Meerut as per representation dated 22.04.2019.

¶12

II. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to protection the attack and other illegal impediments created by the respondent no.9 and protect the right to property of the petitioners which is a constitutional right under Article 300-a of the Constitution of India.

¶13

III. Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.

¶14

IV. to award costs of the writ petition to the petitioners.”

¶15

In fact, Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition 10475 of 2019. One of the prayer made therein is narrated by this

¶16

¶17

Court in the order passed on 23.04.2019 by which aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. Order dated 23.04.2019 is reproduced hereunder:

¶18

“This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, interalia, for the following relief:

¶19

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to provide security to the petitioner in order to enable him to cut his standing crop of wheat on the payment of expenses by the petitioner applicable as per rule."

¶20

Perusal of the record shows that the private respondents are interfering with the cutting of crops of the petitioners.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

¶22

In case, the petitioners are aggrieved, it is open for them to seek a remedy before the common law Court.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed.”

¶24

Thereafter, petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 15266 of 2019 which was disposed of vide following order dated 02.05.2019:

¶25

”This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following relief:

¶26

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.4.2019 passed by the respondent no.4 granting police help to the respondent no. 7 for cutting the crop of the petitioner.

¶27

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 to 6 to provide security to the petitioner from the respondent no.7 looking the threat from him at the time of cutting of crop standing at his field of the land Khata No.41 Khasra No.1/6 area 13.0130 hectare and Khasra no.23/5 are 0.8980 hectare

¶28

¶29

village Bhagwanpur Khadar Pargana Kithor Tehsil Mawana District Meerut."

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶31

Considering the averments made in the writ petition, however, without going into the merits of the case, we direct the respondent no.4, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut to look into the matter personally and do the needful. We grant liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application/representation ventilating their grievance along with certified copy of this order within a period of ten days from today and respondent no.4, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut shall consider the matter afresh after giving full opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

¶32

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶33

In compliance of aforesaid order dated 02.05.2019, Deputy Collector, Mawana has submitted a report dated 04.05.2019 stating therein that there is a serious dispute between parties. Therefore, parties were directed to approach Competent Court of law and whatever decision is taken by Competent Court of law shall be implemented.

¶34

Pursuant to report submitted by Deputy Collector, Mawana, Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut passed an order dated 22.05.2019. Relevant portion of aforesaid order is quoted hereunder:

¶35

^^mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g LiV gksrk gS xkVk la[;k 1@6 o xkVk la[;k 23@5 dqy jdck 13 911 gs0 esa ls fodzhr jdck 4-6372 gs0 esa fookfnr xsgWw dh Qly dks Vgy flag lfpo] f'ko lsok lnu l;qDr lgdkjh lfefr esjB }kjk tksrh&cks;h x;h a gSA vr% xsgwW dh Qly ls izkIr ?kujkf'k dks Jh Vgy flag iq= eaxy flag] lfpo] f'ko lsok lnu la;qDr lgdkjh lfefr esjB ds i{k esa voeqDr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶36

¶37

mijksDrkuqlkj ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 02-5-2019 ds vuqikyu esa ;kph ,l0,e0ds0 iSVks dSfedYl bf.M;k izk0 fy0 }kjk Mk;jsDVj Jh uohu dqekj iq= rqylhjke fuoklh 39 d`".kk ekfdZV f'kokth ikdZ VsyhQksu ,Dlpsat lh&66 QLVZ Qyksj f'kokth ikdZ iatkch ckx osLV fnYyh vkfn }kjk fn;s x;s izr;kosnu fnukad 06-5-2019 fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA**

¶38

English translation by the Court:

¶39

“From the aforesaid facts it transpires that wheat crop stands cultivated by Tahal Singh, Secretary, Shiv Sewa Sadan Sanyukta Sahkari Samiti on a stretch of land measuring 4.6372 hectare which has been sold out of gata nos. 1/6 and 23/5 having the total area of 13.911 hectare. Hence, proceeds of the wheat crop are released in favour of Sri Tahal Singh, son of Mangal Singh, Secretary, Shiv Sewa Sadan Sanyukta Sahkari Samiti, Meerut.

¶40

As aforesaid, in compliance with the order dated 2.5.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the representation dated 6.5.2019 moved by petitioner S.M.K. Petro Chemicals India Pvt Ltd through its Director Sri Naveen Kumar s/o Tulsi ram r/o 39 Krishna Market, Shivaji Park Telephone Exchange, C-66 First Floor, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, West Delhi, etc stands disposed of.”

¶41

Petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 19231 of 2019, which was disposed of vide following order dated 31.05.2019:-

¶42

“Heard Sri A.K. Gaur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Rai for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for State of U.P.

¶43

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.5.2019, passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut (respondent-4).

¶44

Earlier, the petitioner approached this court and filed Writ - C No.

¶45

¶46

15266 of 2019 for quashing the order dated 20.4.2019, passed by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut (respondent-4), granting police help to Shiv Sadan Sanyukta Sahkari Samiti Ltd., village Bhagvapur Khadar, P.S. Kithaur (respondent-7) for harvesting the crop over the disputed land. This writ petition has been disposed of by order dated 2.5.2019, giving liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation, ventilating their grievance, along with certified copy of the order before Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut (respondent-4), who was directed to decide it, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶47

In pursuance of the order dated 2.5.2019, the petitioner moved his representation before Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut (respondent-4), who called for a report from Sub Divisional Officer, Mavana. Sub Divisional Officer, Mavana after considering the matter, submitted his report dated 4.5.2019, in which he has clearly mentioned that as the dispute between the parties was in relation to possession over immovable property, as such, it could only be adjudicated by civil court. However, without considering the report of Sub Divisional Officer, Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut (respondent-4) by his order dated 22.5.2019, directed for harvesting the crop by administrative authorities and preserving its sale proceeds. Now, by the impugned order, he has permitted respondent-7 to withdraw the amount. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.”

¶48

We have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioners. Essentially, this was a dispute between private parties, in relation to possession over immovable property, therefore, Sub Divisional Officer has rightly observed that such a dispute can be adjudicated by civil court. The petitioner has remedy to file a civil suit before the court concerned.

¶49

In the facts of the case, it is provided that in case the petitioner

¶50

¶51

files a civil suit, then it would be decided independently, without being influenced by any observation made by Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Meerut (respondent-4) in the impugned order dated 22.5.2019. The petitioner may also file an application for interim injunction before the civil court for grant of any relief.

¶52

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is finally disposed of.”

¶53

Thereafter, it appears that petitioner filed Original Suit No. 435 of 2019 before Civil Court vide plaint dated 29.05.2019 and relief sought therein is as under:

¶54

^^14;g fd oknhx.k fuEufyf[kr izfrdkjksa ds fy, izkFkhZ gSA ¼v½ ;g fd U;k;ky; dh fMxjh }kjk oknhx.k ds fgr esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) vLFkk;h fu"ks?kkRed vkKk bl vk'k; ls izlkfjr dh tkos fd izfroknhx.k] izfroknh la0 1 lfefr dh vkM esa d`f"k Hkwfe Hkwfe/kjh [kljk la[;k 1@6 jdck 13-0130 gSDVs;j o [kljk la[;k 23@ 5 jdck 0-8980 gSDVs;j dqy uEcj 2 dqy jdck 13-9110 gSDVs;j yxkuh 343 @& :i;s 75 iSls lkykuk fLFkr xzke Hkxokuiqj [kknj] ijxuk fdBkSj] rglhy eokuk] ftyk esjB esa oknhx.k ds 1@3 Hkkx ;kfu 5-6373 gSDVs;j Hkwfe ftlesa oknhx.k dk V;wcsy] Hkou fuekZ.k o ;wisfyfIVl ds isM o [kEcksa dh rkjks dh okjcUnh rFkk Qly ekStwn gS] esa oknhx.k ds 'kkfUr iw.kZ dCts o iz;ksx esa dksbZ O;o/kku o gLr{ksi fdlh Hkh izdkj ls uk djds ml ij tcjnLrh dCtk djus o [kqnZ cqnZ djus ls ckt ls ckt jgsA

¶55

¼c½ ;g fd okn dk O;; oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA ¼l½ ;g fd vU; izfrdkj tks U;k;ky; oknhx.k ds fgr esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) mfpr le>s iznku fd;s tkosA**

¶56

English translation by the Court:

¶57

¶58

“14. That the plaintiffs pray for the following reliefs: -

¶59

(A) In the interest of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, a temporary injunction may kindly be issued by way of a decree of the court restraining the respondents, acting in the garb of the authority of the defendant no. 1, the society, from interfering and obstructing plaintiff's peaceful possession and occupation and also from taking forceful possession of, as also making misappropriation of, the 1/3 part of the plaintiff's land, 5.6373 hectare in area, whereon the tube-well, house, eucalyptus trees and crops bounded by wires and poles owned by him are present, out of the total two agricultural lands bhoomidhari khasara no. 1/6 measuring 13.0130 hectare, and khasara no. 23/5 measuring 0.8980 hectare, totalling 13.9110 hectare and entailing total land revenue of Rs. 343/- and 75/- paise, located in the village-Bhagawanpur Khadar, Pargana – Kithaur, Tehsil- Mawana, District – Meerut.

¶60

(B) The costs of the suit may kindly be awarded to the plaintiffs from the respondents.

¶61

(C) Any other relief that the court deems to be proper may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.”

¶62

Since the same relief, which has been sought by petitioner in this writ petition, has already been prayed for before Civil Court of competent jurisdiction therefore present writ petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶63

Order Date :- 22.8.2019 YK

Smk Petrochemical India Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smk Petrochemical India Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Narain Mehrotra Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector and Ors.

Smt. Shradha Dixit Vs Apoorva Dixit

Smt. Rajkumari @ Rajju and Another Vs Ram Pratap

Shahid Beg and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 14 Others

Maruti Salt Udyog and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shamim Jama Khan Vs State of U P and 3 Others