ishwar Dayal Goyal Vs. Additional District Judge and ors.

ishwar Dayal Goyal vs Additional District Judge and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Nov 21, 2003

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/491769

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/491769
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.P. Mehrotra, J.
Decided On: Nov 21, 2003
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51694 of 2003
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Provincial Small Cause Courts Act - Sections 25; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ishwar Dayal Goyal

Advocate H.P. Dube, Adv.

Respondent

Additional District Judge and ors.

Advocate None

Legal References

Acts: Provincial Small Cause Courts Act - Sections 25; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 2005(1)ARC605

Excerpt

.....the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - , plaintiffs in the said suit) as well as the counsel for the other side (i. 12. in the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to give any reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the present writ petition......in the said suit).7. thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 19.11.2003 seeking the reliefs mentioned above.8. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.9. from the above narration of the facts, it is evident that while the order impugned in the present writ petition was passed on 6.3.2003, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this court on 19.11.2003.10. in paragraph no. 22 of the writ petition, the petitioner has tried to explain the delay in filing the present writ petition. it is, interalia, stated in the said paragraph no. 22 of the writ petition that 'the petitioner was not aware of about the impugned judgment dated 6.3.2003 and he came to know about the imposition of cost only in the ist week of november, 2003.'11. the said averments made by the petitioner in the aforesaid paragraph no. 22 of the writ petition cannot, in may view, be believed. the impugned order dated 6.3.2003 shows that the counsel for the petitioner and proforma respondents nos. 10 to 19 (i.e., plaintiffs in the said suit) as well as the counsel for the other side (i.e., defendants in the said suit) were heard before passing the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6.3.2003 in the said s.c.c. revision no. 3 of 2001. by the said judgment and order dated 6.3.2003, the learned additional district judge/fast track court no. 5, saharanpur, as noted above, allowed the said s.c.c. revision no. 3 of 2001 filed by the petitioner and proforma respondents nos. 10 to 19 (i.e., plaintiffs in the said suit). thus, there is no reasons as to why the petitioner would not be aware of the said judgment and order dated 6.3.2003 passed in his favour.12. in the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to give any reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the present writ petition. the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.13. even otherwise, the present writ.....

Full Judgment

S.P. Mehrotra, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interlia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 6.3.2003 (Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 5, Saharanpur in so far as it imposed the cost of Rs. 2000/- on the petitioner while allowing S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2001 filed by the petitioner.

2. From the perusal of the averments made in the Writ Petition and the Annexure thereto, it appears that the Petitioner alongwith Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 to 19 filed a suit against the Respondents Nos. 3 to 9 (Respondents Ist set) for eviction, arrears of rent and damages etc., in respect of the shop situated in Mohalla Arhat Bazar, Kasba Gangoh, Pargana Gangoh, District Saharanpur. The said shop has hereinafter been referred to as the 'disputed shop'.

3. The said Suit was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 50 of 1995.

4. It further appears that by the order dated 10.1.2001, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Saharanpur rejected an adjournment application being application No. 146C filed on behalf of the Petitioner and Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 to 19 (i.e., plaintiffs in the said Suit) and closed the evidence of the Petitioner and Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 to 19 (i.e., plaintiffs in the said Suit), and fixed 24.1.2001 for evidence of the defendants, in the Suit. Copy of the said order dated 10.1.2001 has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition.

5. Thereupon, the Petitioner and Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 to 19 (i.e. plaintiffs in the said Suit) filed a Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which was registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2001.

6. By the order dated 6.3.2003, the said S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2001 filed by the Petitioner and Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 of 19 (i.e. plaintiffs in the said Suit) was allowed subject to various conditions mentioned in the said order dated 6.3.2003 including the condition of payment of Rs. 2000/- as cost by the Petitioner and Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 to 19, (i.e. plaintiffs in the said Suit).

7. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on 19.11.2003 seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and perused the record.

9. From the above narration of the facts, it is evident that while the order impugned in the present Writ Petition was passed on 6.3.2003, the Present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner before this Court on 19.11.2003.

10. In Paragraph No. 22 of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has tried to explain the delay in filing the present Writ Petition. It is, interalia, stated in the said Paragraph No. 22 of the Writ Petition that 'the petitioner was not aware of about the impugned judgment dated 6.3.2003 and he came to know about the imposition of cost only in the Ist week of November, 2003.'

11. The said averments made by the Petitioner in the aforesaid Paragraph No. 22 of the Writ Petition cannot, in may view, be believed. The impugned order dated 6.3.2003 shows that the Counsel for the Petitioner and Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 to 19 (i.e., plaintiffs in the said Suit) as well as the Counsel for the other side (i.e., defendants in the said Suit) were heard before passing the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6.3.2003 in the said S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2001. By the said judgment and order dated 6.3.2003, the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 5, Saharanpur, as noted above, allowed the said S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2001 filed by the Petitioner and Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 to 19 (i.e., plaintiffs in the said Suit). Thus, there is no reasons as to why the Petitioner would not be aware of the said Judgment and order dated 6.3.2003 passed in his favour.

12. In the circumstances, the Petitioner has failed to give any reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

13. Even otherwise, the present Writ Petition has been filed against the imposition of cost of Rs. 2000/- while allowing the said S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2001 filed by the Petitioner and Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 to 19 (i.e., plaintiffs in the said Suit), and giving them opportunity to lead evidence in the said Suit.

14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned in the impugned judgment and order dated 6.3.2003, I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 5, Saharanpur in imposing the cost of Rs. 2000/- on the Petitioner and Proforma Respondents Nos. 10 to 19 (i.e. plaintiffs in the said Suit).

15. The Present Writ Petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties ishwar Dayal Goyal vs Additional District Judge and ors. Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge S.P. Mehrotra, J. Acts & Sections Provincial Small Cause Courts Act - Sections 25; Constitution...

Tenancy