- (1.) This petition has been filed with an allegation that the Executive Officers of the State are interfering with the rights of the petitioner over a property, of which freehold rights were declared by the State Government; in an illegal and arbitrary manner as the petitioner has been deprived of utilizing a portion of the property by the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur taking shelter of the so called law and order problem between two communities.
(2.) The property in dispute is Bungalow No.5, Park Road, Civil Lines in Gorakhpur. The freehold deed was executed by the Collector, Gorakhpur of this property ad-measuring 30000 square feet in favour of the petitioner on 24 September 1999. At the time the freehold deed was executed, the Sales Tax Department of the State Government was a tenant in this property. The petitioner instituted SCC Suit No.33 of 2000 before the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Gorakhpur for eviction of the Sales Tax Department. The suit was decreed on 1 December 2005 and the Sales Tax Department of the State Government was directed to handover vacant possession of the building and land within one month and to also pay mesne profits and damages to the tune of Rs.7,500/- per month. A revision was filed by the Sales Tax Department to assail this order but it was dismissed on 29 March 2006. These orders were assailed by the Sales Tax Department in Writ Petition No.31339 of 2006 which petition was dismissed on 10 January 2008. Still not satisfied, the Sales Tax Department of the State Government filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 29 August 2008.
(3.) It needs to be stated that the petitioner had earlier filed Execution Case No.1 of 2006 which remained pending because of the various proceedings initiated by the Sales Tax Department and it is only after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5193 of 2010 for expeditious disposal of the Execution Case. It is, thereafter, the possession was handed over to the petitioner on 30 November 2010 in terms of the directions issued under Order XXI, Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner, it is stated, is in possession of the property in dispute ever since 30 November 2010.;