Leeladhar Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble the Chief Justice - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1120030
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJan-28-2014
AppellantLeeladhar Dixit
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon'ble the Chief Justice
Excerpt:
w.p.nos.852/08 & 2243/08 28.1.14 shri anoop saxena, advocate for the petitioners.shri s.d.tiwari, g.a.for the respondent-state. heard, counsel for the parties. these petitions take exception to the tender invitation process dated 24.4.07 (annexure p/1) and work order dated 17.5.07 (annexure p/2).further relief has been claimed in the petitions to restore the possession of the petitioners on concerned land and to provide exemplary compensation to the petitioners for damages due to illegal action taken by the respondents. as regards firs.relief, the question is whether the petitioners can be permitted to challenge tender invitation notice and work order referred to in the petitions. that tender invitation notice and work order were issued by the authorities for construction and maintenance of the temple site after it was cleared by the concerned authorities. incidentally, it is alleged by the petitioners that during clearance action, structures possessed by the petitioners also came to be demolished. that, however, cannot give locus to the petitioners to challenge the tender invitation notice or the work order as such. the petitioners can pursue relief for restoration of possession of the properties which were earlier in their lawful occupation before removal of encroachments and clearance by the authorities and for damages and compensation, which can be considered only after the petitioners are in a position to substantiate by providing evidence that they, in fact, were in lawful possession of some premises which were affected during site clearance program and further that they did not get any prior notice whatsoever. only thence the petitioners may become entitled for further relief. from the pleadings on record, we find that the case pleaded by the petitioners for restoration of possession and compensation involves disputed questions of facts. as a result, we are not inclined to examine those matters in exercise of writ jurisdiction. our attention has been invited to the earlier orders passed by this court dated 11.7.07 in w.p.no.8396/07 and 12.12.07 in cont. pt. no.1717/07. it is noticed that in the latter order, it has been found that the order passed by this court on 11.7.07 was not communicated to the authorities before the action of clearance was undertaken. that factual position is, however, controverted by the petitioners.in other words, the matter raises disputed questions of facts, including, with regard to the manner in which the clearance was undertaken by the authorities. taking any view of the matter, we are not inclined to keep these proceedings pending nor entertain the grievance of the petitioners in exercise of writ jurisdiction. we dispose of these petitions with liberty to the petitioners to pursue other appropriate remedy for such further relief as may be permissible in law. petitions disposed of on the above terms.interim relief, if any, is vacated forthwith. (a.m.khanwilkar) (krishn kumar lahoti) chief justice judge (and)
Judgment:

W.P.Nos.852/08 & 2243/08 28.1.14 Shri Anoop Saxena, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri S.D.Tiwari, G.A.for the respondent-State.

Heard, counsel for the parties.

These petitions take exception to the Tender Invitation Process dated 24.4.07 (Annexure P/1) and Work Order dated 17.5.07 (Annexure P/2).Further relief has been claimed in the petitions to restore the possession of the petitioners on concerned land and to provide exemplary compensation to the petitioners for damages due to illegal action taken by the respondents.

As regards fiRs.relief, the question is whether the petitioners can be permitted to challenge Tender Invitation Notice and Work Order referred to in the petitions.

That Tender Invitation Notice and Work Order were issued by the Authorities for construction and maintenance of the Temple site after it was cleared by the concerned Authorities.

Incidentally, it is alleged by the petitioners that during clearance action, structures possessed by the petitioners also came to be demolished.

That, however, cannot give locus to the petitioners to challenge the Tender Invitation Notice or the Work Order as such.

The petitioners can pursue relief for restoration of possession of the properties which were earlier in their lawful occupation before removal of encroachments and clearance by the Authorities and for damages and compensation, which can be considered only after the petitioners are in a position to substantiate by providing evidence that they, in fact, were in lawful possession of some premises which were affected during site clearance program and further that they did not get any prior notice whatsoever.

Only thence the petitioners may become entitled for further relief.

From the pleadings on record, we find that the case pleaded by the petitioners for restoration of possession and compensation involves disputed questions of facts.

As a result, we are not inclined to examine those matters in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Our attention has been invited to the earlier orders passed by this Court dated 11.7.07 in W.P.No.8396/07 and 12.12.07 in Cont.

Pt.

No.1717/07.

It is noticed that in the latter order, it has been found that the order passed by this Court on 11.7.07 was not communicated to the Authorities before the action of clearance was undertaken.

That factual position is, however, controverted by the petitioneRs.In other words, the matter raises disputed questions of facts, including, with regard to the manner in which the clearance was undertaken by the Authorities.

Taking any view of the matter, we are not inclined to keep these proceedings pending nor entertain the grievance of the petitioners in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

We dispose of these petitions with liberty to the petitioners to pursue other appropriate remedy for such further relief as may be permissible in law.

Petitions disposed of on the above terMs.Interim relief, if any, is vacated forthwith.

(A.M.Khanwilkar) (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Chief Justice Judge (and)