Puttan v. State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko & Ors.

Court No. - 1 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2683 of 2021

Petitioner :- Puttan

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko & Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohiuddin Khan

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard Mr. Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.1,2, 4 to 7.

In view of order being proposed to be passed, notices to opposite parties' no.3 and 8 to 15 stand dispensed with. Petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no.3 to consider and decide the pending application dated 08.10.2020 moved by the petitioner as contained in Annexure No.13 to the writ petition within shortest period of time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and grant lease of land in question to the petitioner also as has been granted to Shri Sunil Kumar Bajpai vide Permission and License dated 20.07.2020 as contained in Annexure No.12 to this writ petition.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties no.2 and 4 to consider and decide the pending applications dated 19.10.2020, 24.11.2020, 26.11.2020 and 01.12.2010 as contained in Annexures No.13,14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 respectively to the writ petition and take coercive action against the opposite parties no.8 to 15 and restrain the opposite parties no.8 to 15 from interfering in the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the land in question by the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

iii. Pass any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.

(iv) Allow the writ petition with costs." As per averments made in the petition, petitioner was granted lease of the land in question by the erstwhile Raja of Mahmoodabad. Subsequently, the properties in question vested as an Enemy Property with the Custodian, Enemy Property/ Government of India. Mutation in the revenue record to that effect was also carried out.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid factor, the petitioner continue to cultivate the land under his lease. It is also submitted that various other similarly situated

1

person have been granted lease by the District Authority despite the land having vested with the Custodian of Enemy Property although, the petitioner's application for grant of similar lease is being ignored.

In Paragraph 16 of the writ petition, it has been stated that subsequent to the vesting of property in question with the Custodian of Enemy Properties, the Gazette Notification has been challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Transferred Case (Civil) No.115 of 2013, Raja Mohammad Amir Mohammad Khan vs. Union of India & Ors. as well as in Writ Petition (Civil) No.28 of 2016, in which Hon'ble the Supreme Court has passed an order of status quo to be maintained over the property in question.

In view of aforesaid narration of facts, it is apparent that the petitioner's lease over the property in question automatically came to an end by vesting of the property with the Custodian of Enemy Property/ Government of India. The dispute pertaining to aforesaid is already pending consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases in which certain interim directions are also said to be pending. In view of aforesaid factors, in our considered opinion, the prayer as framed in the petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.2.2021 Subodh/-

2