Decided on March 22,2012

Pankaj Mittal Appellant


B.S. Verma, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6 -1 -2011 passed by the revisional authority -Additional Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand (respondent no.1), whereby the map of the respondent no.3 was directed to be sanctioned excluding the disputed property. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, in brief, are that the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit bearing O.S. No. 478 of 2009, Ram Kishan Mittal v. M/s International Associate and another in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) after hearing the parties disposed of the temporary injunction application (paper no. 6 -C2) and directed the defendant no.1 -respondent no.3 not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff -petitioner and also directed the respondent no.2 -MDDA not to sanction the map with regard to disputed property against the law. According to the petitioner, disputed property was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 21 -4 -1998 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition) area 90 Sq.Mt. The petitioner has also annexed the copy of the plaint and the plaint map as Annexure -8 to the writ petition. In the plaint map, the disputed area has been described by the petitioner -plaintiff in detail.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 declined to sanction the map of the respondent no.3 till the pendency of the civil suit by order dated 13 -8 -2010. Against the order of the M.D.D.A., the respondent no.3 preferred a revision before the respondent no.1 -Additional Secretary. The revisional authority has observed in the revision that there is no direction of the civil court not to sanction the map. Ultimately by order dated 6 -1 -2011, the revision has been allowed and the Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority was directed to proceed further to sanction the map filed by the respondent no.3.
(3.) BY a perusal of the order passed by the civil court, it reveals that the Court had directed that the map should not be sanctioned against law. Before the revisional court also, the respondent no.3 made a statement that the map be sanctioned after excluding the area claimed by the petitioner in the aforesaid civil suit.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.