- (1.) Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel who put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. In brief the facts of the present case are to the effect that a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed on 28.4.2009 by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st, Faizabad alongwith the application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C. The said application for temporary injunction was not decided. In the meantime, on 15.4.2010, the respondent No. 3 wrote a letter to the District Administration Authority/Police authorities and the respondent No. 4 thereafter proceeded to dispossess him, hence he approached this Court for redressal of his grievances challenging the order dated 15.4.2010 by filing Writ Petition No. 3711 (M.B.) of 2010 (Satya Prakash v. District Magistrate/Collector, Faizabad and others).
(2.) On 26.4.2010, this Court has passed an order, operative portion of the same is quoted as under:-- At the first sight, it appears that it is a case where under some scheme of the State Government, the land is required to be used, but there appears to be some constructions over some portion of the said land, which are taken as encroachment on the said land by the respondents and therefore, direction has been issued for demarcation of the land which belongs to Rehabilitation Department. Though the petitioner does dispute the aforesaid factual position, but dispute of this nature cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, he can approach the appropriate forum, may be by filing a civil suit in which interim injunction can also be claimed. We also expect that if any such suit is filed alongwith an application for temporary injunction, the said application shall be considered, forthwith, in accordance with law.
(3.) From the perusal of the record, it transpires that again as respondent No. 5 had started the constructions on the land in question on 24.5.2010, so the petitioner moved an application before the Court below on 9.6.2010 under section 151 for temporary injunction, registered 37-G-2 but grievance of the petitioner was not considered, as such, again he approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No. 5943 (M.B.) of 2010 (Om Prakash and another v. District Magistrate/Collector Faizabad and others). On 18.6.2010, this Court has passed an order, operative portion of the same is quoted as under:-- However, it is provided that in case the petitioners move application before the Trial Court, the same shall be adjudicated by the Trial Court during the summer vacation. In case, the Court concerned is not available, the District Judge shall nominate the same to the link Court who shall pass appropriate order expeditiously, on the application of the petitioners. For a period of one month, no demolition shall take place over the land in question.;