This writ petition was dismissed for being maintainable only if the previous order dismissing the first petition was recalled, as the current filing sought the same relief as the earlier withdrawn petition.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15575 of 2022
Petitioner :- Pooran Chand And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anand Prakash Paul,Suresh C. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior advocate assisted by Sri Laxmi Kant Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioners.
Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned counsel appearing for Agra Development Authority has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition filed by the petitioners, stating that from the submission in paragraphs '2' and '3' of the present writ petition, it is evident that the present writ petition is the second writ petition filed for the same relief.
Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, however, submits that the writ petition No. 6043 of 2022 was filed by the subsequent purchasers and the petitioners herein were also impleaded as petitioners there seeking relief for disposal of their representation and restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from their houses. The contention is that the said writ petition had been withdrawn.
On the objection raised with regard to maintainability on behalf of subsequent purchasers, the contention is that the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn was not by the original tenure holders who are the petitioners herein,inasmuch as, none of the purchasers are the petitioners herein. It is further argued that though acquisition notifications were issued in the year 1990 but the possession of area 3200 sq. meter has not been taken for the fact that the house of the petitioners existed thereon. The contention is that the acquired land to the extent of 3200 sq. meter is required to be de-notified under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
Considering this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the prayer made in writ petition No. 6043 of 2022 wherein the present petitioners were also party agitating their claim for acquisition of land in question, and sought relief for the same by filing representations thereunder, we find that withdrawal of the writ petition vide the order dated 11.3.2022
comes in the way of all the petitioners herein, to seek further relief on the same ground. The present writ petition would,thus, come within the meaning of second writ petition seeking same relief as sought in the earlier writ petition.
However, for the averments made by the learned Senior Counsel, we find that the remedy to the petitioners is to seek recall of the order dated 11.3.2022 on the plea taken herein. Present writ petition is accordingly, dismissed being the second writ petition at this stage.
Order Date :- 4.11.2022 P.P.
Digitally signed by POONAM PATEL Date: 2022.11.10 14:06:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition is maintainable as it constitutes a second petition seeking the same relief.
Whether the remedy is to recall the order dismissing the previous writ petition.
Pooran Chand And Another
State Of U.P.
Agra Development Authority
Sunita Agarwal
Vipin Chandra Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
