Dismissed

Zahir Khan v. State of U.P and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WPIL/843/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners filed a PIL removing encroachment from public land while suppressing that a private civil suit involving the same land was pending with an interim injunction grant and an application for impleadment filed by the petitioner. The High Court found this to be gross suppression and abuse of process and dismissed the PIL.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; cost of Rs.10,000 imposed; petitioner prohibited from impleadment in pending civil suit until cost receipt produced.

Zahir Khan vs State of U.P and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110104-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 843 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Zahir Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adeel Ahmad Khan

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Seema Agrawal, SC, Shailesh Kumar Yadav, Rajvendra Singh, Zainul Abdin

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶7

This writ petition purportedly in public interest has been filed seeking a direction to respondents no. 2 to 4 to take strict legal action for removal of encroachment on Araji No.1764, area 1.8660 hectare, situated at Nichlaul, Pargana Tilpur, Tehsil, Post and Police Station Nichlaul, District Maharajganj, recorded as public utility land as 'Karbala' in the revenue record. Further direction has been sought for deciding the representation made by the petitioner.

¶8

On 26.4.2024, time was granted to learned Standing Counsel to complete instructions in the matter and it was submitted by counsel for the petitioner that registered notice had been sent to respondent no.4. On 13.5.2024, instructions were produced, however, as the same were not very clear, learned Standing Counsel was directed to complete the further instructions.

¶9

Today, appearance has been made on behalf of respondent no.6 and a short counter affidavit has been filed inter alia indicating that for the land in question, a Suit filed by respondent no.6 is pending consideration before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District Maharajganj, wherein interim order dated 5.4.2022 has

¶10

been granted in favour of the respondent no.6. In the said Suit, the petitioner has moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code on 2.11.2022, which remains pending and that the facts with regard to pendency of the Suit and filing of the application seeking impleadment in the said Suit have been suppressed by the petitioner in the present petition. W

¶11

When learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the documents produced by respondent no.6, submissions were made that the encroachment is writ large and, therefore, the petition may be entertained.

¶12

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶13

A bare perusal of the documents produced by respondent no.6 clearly indicates that qua the land in question for which the present PIL has been filed, a Suit is pending, wherein an injunction has been granted by the competent Civil Court on 5.4.2022 and in the said Suit, the petitioner has moved an application seeking impleadment.

¶14

Non disclosure of the said facts in the present petition, while filing the same purportedly in public interest, is gross suppression of material facts and as already a Court of competent jurisdiction is seized of the matter, filing of the public interest litigation by a person who has filed an application in the said Suit for impleadment, is gross abuse of the process of the Court.

¶15

Consequently, the petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-. It would be required of the petitioner to deposit the said cost with the Legal Services Committee of this Court. It is further directed that unless the petitioner produces a receipt of the deposit of the cost before the Legal Services Committee of this

¶16

Court, in the pending Suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Maharajganj, he shall not be permitted to prosecute his application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C.

¶17

Copy of this order be sent to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Maharajganj in Original Suit No.358 of 2022.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 RK/N.S. Rathour

¶19

(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Zahir Khan v. State of U.P and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahir Khan v. State of U.P and 5 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

Bachchan Lal vs State of Up and 3 Others

Union of India and 3 Others vs Vishwanath Prasad

Devendra Kumar Chaurasia vs Union of India and 2 Others

Union of India and 3 Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Another

Rajendra Singh and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Dwivedi vs State of Up and 16 Others