SANGEETA CHANDRA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the opposite party no.1 in Appeal No.20171000536 of 2017, under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act annexed as Annexure No.1 in the interest of justice. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, thereby commanding and directing to the Opposite party no.1 to 6 to restrain the opposite party no.7 resuming the construction, over the petitioner's land Khasra No.368, demarcated by opposite party no.3 on 21.03.2017 in compliance of order dated 28.02.2017 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in writ petition No.4457 (M/B) of 2017, in the interest of justice. iii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party no.3 and 6 to take legal action against opposite party no.7 to entering and making construction over the demarcated land of the Khasra No.368 situated at Village Salee Nagar, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow, in the interest of justice. iv) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party no.3 and 6 to provide possession to the petitioner on his land Khasra No.368, under Section 24 of the new Revenue Code in compliance of order dated 29.03.2017 passed in writ petition No.4457 (M/B) of 2017, in the interest of justice.
(3.) This Court had passed a detailed interim order in this petition on 07.11.2017 which is quoted hereinbelow:- " Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6. The petitioner is the owner in possession of Khasra Plot No. 368 measuring 5 Biswa, 1 Biswansi and 5 Kachwansi situated in Village Salehnagar, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow. In the proceedings between the petitioner and one Mangla Devi, owner of adjacent plot no. 367, the land of the petitioner was demarcated vide order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Collector, Sarojani Nagar, Lucknow. On 07.02.2017, Kanti Singh-the respondent no. 7, who it is alleged had purchased a part of plot no. 637, with the help of the police, tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over plot no. 368. Having failed to persuade the authorities concerned to take appropriate action in the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 4457 (M/B) of 2017; Kalawati Vs. Collector Distt. Lucknow and Ors. In the said writ petition an order was passed by this Court on 28.02.2017 directing the Deputy Collector concerned to inspect the spot and execute the order of demarcation. The operative portion of the order dated 28.02.2017 is quoted below:- "Having considered the submissions raised, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow namely the respondent no.2 is under a duty to execute the order of demarcation after confirming it and to fix pillars as per Rule 22 (12) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and is also oblige to take the help of police officials as per Sub-Rule 15 of Rule 22 in order to ensure the same. The respondent no.2 and respondent no.5 are, therefore, directed to immediately inspect the spot as per the direction of the Commissioner, which has been endorsed on the application moved by the petitioner on 10.02.2017 and to take appropriate steps and file their affidavit before this Court by next Tuesday. Put up on Tuesday i.e. 07.03.2017." In the affidavit of compliance filed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojani Nagar, Lucknow it was categorically stated that on 21.03.2017 the order of demarcation dated 08.11.2016 had been executed on the spot and that no construction activity was going on over the plot in dispute. After the respondent no. 7 was restrained from carrying out any construction activity over the plot in dispute, the respondent no. 7 on 15.04.2017 preferred an appeal under Section 210 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 against the order dated 08.11.2016. On 08.05.2017, Writ Petition No. 4457 (M/S) of 2017 was dismissed by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the appellate authority. After the writ petition was dismissed, the private respondent resumed construction over the plot in question. The petitioner again preferred a Writ Petition No. 14607 (M/S) of 2017 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 06.07.2017 with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy available to him. The operative portion of the order dated 06.07.2017 is quoted below:- "As regards the other relief prayed for in the petition that the opposite party no. 7 has resumed constructions on the part of Khasra No. 368 which was demarcated as belonging to the petitioner, is concerned, this is a relief claimed against a private party for which appropriate remedy is available before the Civil Court or the revenue Court, as the case may be, or even before the Appellate Court where the appeal of the opposite party no. 7 is pending where the petitioner may move an application. If any such application has already been filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the Appellate Court, say, within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. " After the order dated 06.07.2017 was served upon the appellate court, on the application moved by the petitioner for restraining the respondent no. 7 from raising construction over the plot in dispute, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) has passed the impugned order whereby the operation of the order of demarcation dated 08.11.2016 has been stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Court below has erred in staying the operation of the order dated 08.11.2016. The counsel submits that the order dated 08.08.2017 has been passed on extraneous considerations. In pursuance of the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by this Court the order dated 08.11.2016 whereby the land in dispute had been demarcated had already been implemented on 21.03.2017 and as such, prima facie, there was no occasion for the court below to stay the operation of demarcation order dated 08.11.2016. Prima facie, case for interim relief is made out. Until further orders the respondent no. 7 is restrained from making any further construction and from altering or modifying any existing construction over khasra plot no. 368 mentioned above. Issue notice to respondent no. 7 by registered post A.D. as well as Courier as approved by Office Memorandum dated 15.12.2015 under Order V, Rule 9 (3) C.P.C. returnable at an early date.";