- (1.) HEARD Shri Prahalad Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent No. 1. Shri R.M. Pandey appears for respondent No. 2. Shri M.C. Tripathi appears for respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE petitioner applied for allotment of an open piece of land on the Canal Patri Nai Dal Mandi, Kanpur Nagar, which appears to have been carved out after a canal was closed by the Nagar Nigam. The petitioner along with 72 persons filed a Writ Petition No. 6865 of 1995 for allotment. The writ petition was dismissed on 23.7.1996 in respect of all those persons, who had not deposited Rs. 20,000 and had raised constructions. They were directed to shift their shops to some other place. The petitioner had not deposited Rs. 20,000/- and was not given any relief by the Court. Instead of removing the shop to some other place, he filed another Writ Petition No. 14467 of 1998, in which a direction was issued on 23.4.1998, that if the petitioner deposits Rs. 20,000/- within three weeks, he will not be dispossessed from the shop in dispute. It is stated that the petitioner deposited Rs. 20,000/- on 6.5.1998 in terms of the order of the Court. The writ petition, however, was dismissed on merits on 10.1.2001 with the following orders: “The real prayer of the petitioner is to command the respondents not to demolish the shop to evict him except in accordance with law but without disclosing its identity. We asked Mr. Diwakar, learned counsel for the petitioner to locate his finger on any pleading with reference to either the plot number, shop No. or even with a reference to its boundary in regard to the identity of the shop in question which he failed. Accordingly we dismiss the writ petition being bad for vagueness."
(3.) THE petitioner thereafter filed a third Writ Petition No. 5875 of 2001 which was also dismissed in limine on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited Rs. 20,000/- and has become defaulter in the year 1996. The order is quoted as below: "This is the third attempt by the writ petitioner to continue in possession. Under the scheme he did not deposited Rs. 20.000/- and became defaulter which has been recorded in the order dated 23.7.1996 of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6865 of 1995. The said writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter writ petition was filed which was also dismissed. We are of the view that there is no scope for granting any relief to the writ petitioner. On the contrary the Kanpur Development Authority should have been approached. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.";