- (1.) M. Katju, J. This petition furnishes a typical instance of a widespread malpractice which is going on in this Court, and possibly in other Courts too, of filing writ petitions in which material facts are concealed, knowing that once an interim order is obtained it can be continued indefinitely by various devices, taking advantage of the fact that due to the heavy arrears in the Courts there is often a great delay in deciding cases.
(2.) THIS writ petition had been filed in the year 1993 for a mandamus directing the State Government to regularize the sanctioned map in favour of the petitioner society. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to treat the land as regularized in favour of the petitioner and also for mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the construction work of the petitioner and to refund the development charges paid by the members of the petitioner society. The petitioner is a society and claims to be the owner of certain plots mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner submitted a map for sanction of construction of buildings vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that it has paid the betterment and development charges. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner and its predecessor have been recorded in the revenue records in the Khasra and Khatauni vide Annexures-17 to 20 of the writ petition.
(3.) IN paragraph 6 of the writ petition it is alleged that acquisition proceedings were started in 1982 although the petitioners had purchased the land in 1981 but no notice was sent to the petitioner although the petitioner's name was recorded in the revenue record when the acquisition proceedings started. IN paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner society had purchased plots in good faith, and the Kanpur Development Authority (K. D. A.) had circulated a notice that the society should deposit the amount for regularization vide Annexures 23 and 24 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that all the possession before 31-3-1990 has been regularized. It is alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that there are notifications dated 25-4-1984 and 16-6- 1992 that if the plots have been purchased by the society, the said land shall be exempted from the acquisition proceedings. True copy of the G. O. dated 25-10-1971, 25-4-1984 and 16-6-1992 are Annexures 25, 26 and 27 to the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that in view of Section 360 of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 the acquisition proceedings have to be treated as having abandoned. Similar provision exists in the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.;