THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 845 of 2010 (M/S) Uttarakhand Pay Jal Samadhi Vikas Avam Nirman Nigam ………..Petitioner Versus Civil Judge (Junior Division) and others …….Respondents Shri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. Shri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Dated: 18th June, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) 1st, Dehradun to pass appropriate orders on the impleadment application filed by the petitioner on the next date fixed i.e. 14.07.2010 and further to decide the Original Suit no.39/2003 filed by the respondent no.2 within one month on the basis of day to-day hearing. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 filed a writ petition no.1072 (M/B) 2006 before this Court for quashing the Government Order dated 14.09.2005 by which the land falling in Khasra no.190 measuring 0.345 hectare and Khasra no.192 measuring 0.040 hectare village Brahamanwala, Niranjanpur, Pargana Central Doon, Tehsil & District Dehradun was transferred in favour of the Uttaranchal Minority Welfare and the Waqf Development 2 Corporation for construction of traveler’s lodge. The writ petition was also filed for direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner-Kasin (respondent no.2 in the present petition) from the land falling in Khasra no.190 measuring 0.345 hectare. Reliefs prayed in writ petition no.1072 (M/B) of 2006 are being reproduced below: “I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government Order dated 14.09.2005 (Annexure No.6) as well as all the consequential proceeding and orders passed pursuant thereto. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to disposes the petitioner from the land falling in Khasra No.190 measuring 0.345 hectare. III. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. IV. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” On 25.08.2006 this Court admitted the writ petition no.1072 (M/B) of 2006 and stayed the Government Order dated 14.09.2005. It was further provided in the order that till the pendency of the Original Suit no.39 of 2003, pending before Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. Order passed by this Court on 25.08.2006 in writ petition no.1072/2006 is reproduced below: “In the meantime, the order dt.14- 9-2005 passed by the Government of Uttaranchal (Annexure No.6) shall remain stayed and it is provided that till the pendency of the Original Suit No.39 of 2003 pending before Civil Judge (J.D.) Dehradun, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute.” The writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2006 by which the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) , Dehradun was directed to decide the Original Suit no.39/2003 “Kashim Vs. Nagar Nigam Dehradun” as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. It was further provided in the order that till the pendency of the suit, the interim order dated 25.08.2006 granted by this Court shall remain operative. Order passed by this Court in writ petition no.1072 (M/B) of 2006 is being quoted below: “In view of the above agreement between the parties, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun to decide the aforesaid suit pending before him as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that till the pendency of the suit, the interim order dated 25.08.2006 granted by this Court shall remain operative. It is further made clear that The appellant/plaintiff shall implead respondent No.4 as defendant in the aforesaid suit. The petitioner is directed to submit a copy of this order before court concerned within ten days from today. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of finally.” The certified copy of the order was produced before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun on 29.09.2006. About 4 years have passed and 211 times the case was listed, but the same has not been decided. In the meantime the Additional Secretary, State of Uttarakhand directed the Chief Town Officer, 4 Nagar Nigam, Dehradun to allocate 9.445 hectare of land situated at village Brahamanwala, Kargi Grant Haridwar Road, Dehradun which is in the name of Nagar Nigam Dehradun for construction of Sewerage Treatment Plant to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Secretary, State of Uttarakhand sent a letter dated 22.08.2007 to the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 to give possession of the plot measuring 9.445 hectare to the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to take the possession and settle the boundaries of the plot and fix a board stating therein the construction of Sewerage Treatment Plant. Thereafter, vide letter dated 10.10.2009, the Director, Investment Program Management Unit, Uttarakhand Urban Sector Development Investment Program, Government of Uttarakhand, wrote a letter to District Magistrate, Dehradun directing him to give possession of the land in question to the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun sent a letter dated 29.03.2010, to Tehsildar Dehradun directing him to measure the Khasra No.181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193 situated in village Brahamanwala and plot nos.542, 544, 545, 546 situated in village Kargi as per revenue records so that the construction of Sewerage Treatment Plant may be started. The petitioner could not take the possession of Khasra no.190 and Khasra no.191 due to the order passed in the writ petition no.1072/2006 and also due to the pendency of the suit as well as the order passed by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ petition no.1072 (M/B) 2006 was filed for quashing the Government Order dated 14.09.2005 and also for restraining the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land falling in Khasra no.190 measuring 0.345 hectare. He submitted that the writ petition was not filed for the disposal of the Original Suit No.39/2003 and no such prayer was made in the said writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of finally as both the parties agreed that the writ petition may be disposed of and a direction was issued that interim order dated 25.08.2006, granted by this Court shall remain operative till the pendency of the suit. He submitted that respondent no.2 is seeking adjournment in the suit, which is evident from the order sheet and is getting benefit of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition no.1072/2006 (M/B). He argued that this is a clear cut abuse of process of law and also contempt of this Court’s order as he by taking unnecessary adjournments delayed the disposal of the suit. On 03.06.2010, this Court heard this case and found that inspite of the order passed by the High Court for expeditious disposal of the case within a period of 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, the case has not been decided, though about 4 years have passed and 211 times the case was listed. This Court vide order dated 03.06.2010, showed its displeasure and directed the office to ask comments from all Judicial Officers who 6 conducted the case from 29.06.2006 till date. Order passed by this Court on 03.06.2010 is quoted below: “This Court is shocked to see that inspite of the order passed for expeditious disposal of the case within a period of 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, the case has not been decided though about 4 years have passed and 211 times the case was listed but adjournments were granted by the learned Trial Court. This Court also shows its displeasure about the fact that order passed by the High Court has not been taken seriously by the Presiding Officers conducting the case from 2006. Office is directed to ask comments from all Judicial Officers who conducted this case from 29.06.2006 till date, about the delay in disposal of the case. Comments shall be collected within one week from today.” Comments from the Judicial Officers are on record. Some reasons are common and some are different. From the perusal of the order sheet it is clear that delay is caused mainly on the behest of the respondent no.2. Few orders of the Trial Court are quoted below: “06.12.2006- Called both present. 99 D. adjournment by plaintiff no objection. Heard. Allowed as last opportunity as the matter is under directions of Hon’ble High Court fixing 14.12.06 for disposal. Status quo be maintained till the date fixed.” “fnukad 09.04.2007- iqdkjk x;k A oknh Lo;a mifLFkr gS rFkk vU; izfroknhx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk mifLFkr gSaA oknh us U;k;ky; ls ekSf[kd izkFkZuk dh gS fd mls u;k vf/koDrk fu;qDr djus dh vuqefr iznku dh tk;sA U;k;ky; ;g ugha le> ik jgk gS fd oknh ckj&ckj vf/koDrk D;ksa cny jgk gS ,slk izrhr gks jgk gS fd oknh ckj&ckj vf/koDrk cnydj ekuuh; mRrjkapy mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ’k ds fo#} okn foyafcr dj jgk gSA vr% oknh dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og vius u;s fu;qDr vf/koDrk ds lkFk fnukad 10.04.07 dks mifLFkr gks vU;Fkk U;k;ky; ds ikl dksbZ fodYi ughsa gksxk rFkk ;fn og Lo;a okn dh iSjoh djuk pkgrk gS rks og bl laca/k esa Hkh LorU= gSA” “fnukad 16.07.2007- 154 ?k LFkxu izk0i= [kkfjt djrs gq, U;k;ky; oknh dks lk{; dk volj lekIr djrk gSA i=koyh okLrs lk{; izfroknhx.k fnukad 20.07.07 dks is’k gksA” “fnukad 21.08.2007- ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd oknh tku cw>dj i=kokyh dks foyafcr dj jgk gSA ;g i=koyh ekuuh; mRrjk[kaM mPo U;k;ky; }kjk funsZf’kr gS vkSj fdlh Hkh vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk i=koyh esa fdlh izdkj dk LFkxu izLrqr ugha fd;k tk ldk gSA ,sls esa vuko’;d vk/kkjksa ij izLrqr fd;s x;s izk0i= 179 ?k dks U;k;ky; [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; le>rk gSA ,d gh vk/kkj ij oknh dh vksj ls 1.08.07 o 14.08.07 dks LFkxu izLrqr fd;s x;s Fks vkSj vkt Hkh mlh vk/kkj ij LFkxu izk0i= izLrqr djds izfroknh la0 1 ds xokg dh ftjg djus ls badkj dj fn;k x;k gSA ,sls esa U;k;ky; oknh dks izfroknh la0 1 ds xokg dh ftjg dk volj lekIr djrk gSA i=koyh okLrs 'ks"k lk{; vxyh fu;r frfFk fnukad 27.08.07 dks is’k gksA” “fnukad 05.03.2009- okn iqdkjk x;kA oknh ,oa izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDr mifLFkr gSA LFkxu izkFkZuk i= oknh ds xokg )kjk izLrqr fd;k gSA izfroknh }kjk vkifRr dh xbZ gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd oknh ds )kjk fHkUu&fHkUu vk/kkjksa ;k frfFk LFkxu gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k tk jgk gSA i=koyh ekuuh; mPp U;k;y; )kjk [kkfjt gsrq funs’khr dh ;g oknh dk gS fd og vius xokg dh mifLFkfr U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt gsrq funs’khr dh ;g oknh dk gS fd og vius xokg dh mifLFkfr U;k;ky; esa lqfuf’pr djsa mlds )kjk vius dk fuosnu ugha fd;k tk jgk gS vr% U;k;fgr esa LFkxu izkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA oknh dk lk{; dk fy;k tkrk gS izfroknh dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og fu;r frfFk ls iwoZ viuk lwph xokg o 'kiFki= U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djsa rFkk fu;r frfFk dks xokg dks ftjg gsrq U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djsa A i=koyh okLrs ftjg izfroknh fnukad 18.03.09 dks is’k gksA” From the perusal of the aforesaid orders it is clear that the respondent no.2 has deliberately delayed the proceedings of the suit. The same is clear cut abuse of process of law. In view of the fact that direction for expeditious disposal of the suit has already been given by this Court on 19.09.2006 in writ petition no.1072/2006 (M/B) by which the Trial Court was directed to decide the suit preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, this Court does not thinks it fit and proper to issue the same direction again in the instant writ petition. Since the period granted by this Court has expired in the month of January, 2007 and the case has not been decided so far, positive direction is required to be issued to the Trial Court. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to hear the case on day-to-day basis and decide the same very very expeditiously. The Trial Court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. As far as petitioner’s application for impleadment (application no.267 A-1) is concerned, it is directed that the Trial Court shall decide the same on the date fixed i.e. 14.07.2010. This Court is satisfied that the application moved by the petitioner for impleadment is bonafide. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 18.06.2010