RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 16-2-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mathura, respondent No. l rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for release of the shops in dispute Nos. 57 and 57-A situate in Mohalla Kucha Sonaran, Holi Gate, Mathura. The application was registered as P. A. Case No. 62 of 1983. Respondents 2, 3, and one Smt. Jamuna Devi had the aforesaid application. Smt. Jamuna Devi died during the pendency of the case. Her heirs and legal representatives were already on record as respondents 2 and 3. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 13-4-1990 and was upheld by the District Judge, Mathura vide order dated 27- 9-1990 on appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 4533 of 1991 against the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge, Mathura,
(3.) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner filed a supplementary-affidavit on 3-1-1991 to the effect that the Mathura Vrindaban Development Authority had not sanctioned the map for construction. It was averred in the supplementary affidavit that the only intention of the respondents in getting the shops vacated was to let out its various portions to tenants hence a prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents not to let portion to the accommodation to any one was also sought. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 3-1-1991 holding thus: "i have carefully gone through the order of the appellate authority dated 27-9-1990 and in my opinion, it does not suffer from any illegality so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. However, in case the landlords without taking steps for reconstruction of the premises have let out the demolished portion to the tenants, there appears to be no justification for refusing the petitioner also to occupy the demolished portion which was in his possession. The petitioner can approach the District Judge, Mathura for necessary action in this regard. ";