Ravi Swaroop Dhavan, A.B.Srivastava, JJ. - (1.) THIS ten years old matter pending since 1985 has in effect been heard by the High Court twice When this Court heard the matter on 23rd November, 1995 and rendered its opinion by a judgment dictated in open Court, it was not signed at the request of learned counsel who had sent an illness slip on the day when the matter was taken up The Court permitted the indulgence of a rehearing but declined the request of an inordinate delayed adjournment for the simple reason that it would reflect badly on a court system where causes languish for a decade and yet are adjourned. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length today in fact petitioner's counsel has had more than the indulgence he had sought because on a counter affidavit which had been filed in 1986, today, after 9 years the petitioner has chosen to file a rejoinder affidavit, but without leave of Court
(2.) UPON hearing counsel for the petitioner in detail and having seen the record, the Court is not prepared to lend its discretion in interfering in this matter The Court does not appreciate that the petitioner has presented facts otherwise than are on the record, and has misutilised a writ of certiorari to impugn the judgment of the City Magistrate, Agra dated 17.1.1985 (Annexure '10' to the writ petition) in Case No. 47 of 1983 Public Works Department v. Rasik Lal. The issues which arise out of the writ petition are simple. The petitioner having purchased a certain track of agricultural land upon a road which has been announced for use as a public highway and for a public purpose, chose to erect a building upon it. He was cautioned by the authority that what he was doing is incorrect and contrary to U.P. Roadside Land Control Act, 1945 The petitioner admits that he purchased that land in 1952 But, the petitioner resisted the proposition that the notification dated 11th December, 1953 which formalised the sanction for construction of certain highways, being subsequent to his purchasing the land, could affect him
(3.) AS from the record, the pleadings, the order which has been impugned and the notification of 11th December, 1953 the Court is not in agreement with the petitioner.;