High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Arvind Singh v. The State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. - 46313 of 2007  RD-AH 16642 (12 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 3
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46313 of 2007.
Arvind Singh. ...... ...... .... ...Petitioner.
The State of U.P. and others. ....... .... ...Respondents.
(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.P. Mehrotra)
For the Petitioner : Sri Rajeev Misra. .
For the Respondents : Standing Counsel.
Amitava Lala, J.-- Earlier the writ petition was placed as fresh in the list before this Court on 10th October, 2007, but when none appeared, the same was placed in the main cause list. However, subsequently Mr. Rajeev Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended before this Court that there is some urgency in the matter, therefore, the matter can be placed in the list before the dashehra vacation. Accordingly, a listing application has been made, which is in the list. Hence, the listing application is disposed of treating the writ petition as in the day's list for the purpose of hearing.
This writ petition, as we find, is made for the purpose of directing the respondents not to interfere in his possession on the ground that in spite of filing of the suit being Original Suit No. 568 of 2004 before the appropriate Court and in spite of the fact that an order of injunction at an interlocutory stage is available to the petitioner against the private respondent in respect of the possession of the property, which he has obtained under the will, some of the State-respondents being respondent nos. 2 to 5 and one Mr. P.N. Yadav, Halka Incharge No. 2 of the Police Station Bhadohi are regularly giving threat for interference in the property by taking a plea that property belongs to scheduled caste.
We are of the view that when the petitioner has already availed the opportunity of the civil proceedings in the civil court and obtained an order of injunction, we are not in a position to interfere with the same. Mr. Misra wanted to explain the position that the State authorities are not parties to the suit and, therefore, writ lies against them. He also stated that in one of the similarly placed writ petition a Division Bench of this Court issued notices. He relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 1780 (Smt. Parvatibai Subhanrao Nalawade Vs. Anwarali Hasanali Makani and others etc.) to establish that ordinarily the High Court should not interfere with the civil cases under the special jurisdiction of the Constitution unless the circumstances are exceptional.
According to us, the provision of law is very clear to that extent. Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act if any body is dispossessed illegally then he can initiate summary suit in the appropriate civil court for the purpose of getting back the property, from which he has been dispossessed. If such action is taken by the State, in that case he might get an opportunity to invoke the jurisdiction of the writ Court for the purpose of redressal of the grievance, but no such situation is available hereunder. In the instant case, the writ petition has been filed on 17th September, 2007 and till today no such case has been established before the Court that he has been made attempt of dispossession excepting threat and apprehension of removal from the property. Firstly, on the basis of apprehension no writ can lie. Secondly, when a civil suit is already existing and an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner is subsisting, it would not be appropriate for the writ court to interfere with the issue with regard to the property in question. It would be appropriate for the petitioners to apply before the civil court for addition of parties therein and obtain an appropriate order after their addition as party respondents. The slipshod manner can not be allowed to be adopted in the teeth of the civil dispute pending before the appropriate civil court, in which the order of injunction is already operating. Thus, upon verifying the situation we are of the view that no relief can be granted in this writ petition. Hence, the same is not admitted. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.
(Justice Amitava Lala)
(Justice S.P. Mehrotra)
Dt./- 12th October, 2007.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.