CW – 1647/04 - Seva Ram Vs. State & Anr. : Order dt : 18.3.08 1/6 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1647/2004 Seva Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date : 18.03.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Tarun Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Thanvi for the respondents. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner claimed the following reliefs;- “a. The respondents may kindly be directed to demarcate the plot on the site and hand over physical possession of the plot no.68 allotted to the petitioner immediately, and b. In alternative if the allotted plot for any reason cannot be handed over then a plot of land in the same area and same measurement may kindly be allotted to the petitioner. c. Any other relief the Hon'ble Court thinks fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. d. The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded CW – 1647/04 - Seva Ram Vs. State & Anr. : Order dt : 18.3.08 2/6 in favour of the petitioner.” 3. This Court issued notices to the respondents on 19.4.2004 and thereafter hearing both the parties on 13.9.2006, this Court passed a detailed order directing the respondent UIT to remove encroachment of plot No.68, Haripura Vyas Colony, Air Force, Jodhpur for which a licence deed was executed by the respondent UIT, Jodhpur in favour of the petitioner regularizing alleged long possession over the said plot on 31st March, 1982 vide Annex.1 on record. When the matter again came up before this Court on 26.2.2008, on account of non-compliance of earlier directions given by this Court on on 13.9.2006, the Court directed the respondent – UIT to file additional affidavit to show the factual position of the said plot and to also report compliance of the said directions. Again on 12.3.2008, the Secretary of respondent UIT was directed to remain present in the Court along with the explanation and the record to show as to why the earlier directions of this Court were not complied with by them and why possession free from encroachment was not given to the petitioner of the said plot in question. 4. Today the Secretary of respondent UIT is present in the CW – 1647/04 - Seva Ram Vs. State & Anr. : Order dt : 18.3.08 3/6 Court and he has filed an additional affidavit on behalf of the respondent UIT explaining therein that after the directions of this Court on 13.9.2006 as a matter of fact, the petitioner who was given the licence of said plot No.68, Haripura Vyas Colony, Air Force, Jodhpur against the payment of Rs.524.70 vide Annex.R2/15 dated 13.3.1982, had also given the affidavit that he was in possession of the said plot since 12.2.1971 and he had in fact applied after 13.9.2006 vide Annex.R2/21 an application which does not bear any date, that the petitioner may be given an alternative plot in lieu of the aforesaid plot No.68 in Haripura Colony instead of giving him the possession of the said plot so that he can get the “real justice” in this regard. It is also placed on record that an FIR was lodged by the petitioner in Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur on 23.9.1994 to the effect that one Mr. Yudhisthir alias Kishore S/o Lalu Ram Harijan had encroached upon the said plot No.68, Haripura Vyas Colony, Air Force, Jodhpur. During the pendency of the trial upon this FIR, on 13.8.1998 the petitioner entered into a compromise with the said accused and accordingly the said person was acquitted of the offence under Section 447 I.P.C. by the trial court on 13.8.1998 vide Annex.R2/20. It has also been stated in the said additional affidavit filed by the respondent UIT, Jodhpur today that in fact on 5.5.2007 CW – 1647/04 - Seva Ram Vs. State & Anr. : Order dt : 18.3.08 4/6 upon the application of the petitioner, the respondent, UIT, Jodhpur had taken a decision to allot an alternative plot No.79 measuring 25 x 50 ft. in Patrakar Colony in khasra No.702, 703, 704 and 727 in village Chokha near Jodhpur. Vide Annex.2/25 through the office note of the respondent UIT, it is also explained that on 28.2.2008, the petitioner has moved the respondent UIT for execution of lease deed for the said alternative plot got allotted by him at Chokha and the said lease deed has in fact been executed by the respondent UIT on 15.3.2007. 5. From the said explanation, the averments and documents placed on record of this Court, it is very clear that the petitioner has abused the process of this Court. He came to the Court on the ground that despite execution of licence deed in his favour for the aforesaid plot No.68 on 31.3.1982, the respondent UIT failed to hand him over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said plot. As a matter of fact, he got the plot No.68 on the basis of his proclaimed possession over the said plot at least since 1971 vide his affidavit given before the respondent UIT for a paltry sum of Rs.524/- as aforesaid. When he found that the said plot has been encroached upon by one Mr. Yudhisthir, he set the criminal proceedings into CW – 1647/04 - Seva Ram Vs. State & Anr. : Order dt : 18.3.08 5/6 motion by filing FIR in Police Station Shastri Nagar on 23rd September, 1994. When it suited him otherwise, he entered into the compromise with the said person on 13.8.1998 and got those proceedings dropped. After obtaining the orders from this Court on 13.9.2006, he approached the respondent, UIT, Jodhpur for allotment of alternative plot in which he succeeded. Be that as it may, without placing these subsequent developments which took place during the pendency of this writ petition on record, the petitioner kept mum on one side and kept this Court in dark about these subsequent developments and obtained the subsequent orders from this Court on 26.2.2008 and 12.3.2008 directing the respondents to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the plot No.68, Haripura Vyas Colony, Air Force, Jodhpur to him. Thus, the petitioner appears to have not only abused the process of this Court in aforesaid manner but riding on the wave of orders of this Court, he prevailed over the respondent UIT, Jodhpur to secure an allotment of alternative plot at Village Chokha. Such an abuse of process of Court certainly deserves to be strongly deprecated by this Court. Since however, the respondent UIT has now allotted the plot No.79 at village Chokha to the petitioner in lieu of plot No.68 at Haripura Vyas Colony, Air Force, Jodhpur in the aforesaid manner, this Court is not inclined to CW – 1647/04 - Seva Ram Vs. State & Anr. : Order dt : 18.3.08 6/6 disturb such subsequent allotment in favour of the petitioner. However, no relief as aforesaid, can be granted or is required to be granted to the petitioner in respect of plot No.68 of Haripura Vyas Colony, Air Force in the aforesaid writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- on the petitioner, which he would pay to the respondent UIT, Jodhpur. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.4 babulal/-