- (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner, through this writ petition filed on 27-10-1998, is to command the Respondents to dispose of his application dated 1-10-1991 (as contained in Annexure 2) within a stipulated period taking into account the order dated 14-5-1991 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Land Reference No. 339 of l989,sabhapativ. THE Collector, Varanasi.
(2.) ON 29-10-1998 the Division Bench, before which this writ petition was placed, had passed the following order: "gaya Prasad, petitioner, is alleged to have made some application on 1-10-1991 pur porting to have been moved under Section 28-A (1) of the Land Acquisition Act before the authority concerned. The question of facts are involved in this case Sri Vishnu Pratap, learned Standing Counsel, prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by Sri N. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, within one week thereafter. The petition shall be listed for admis sion/final disposal in the week commencing 7-12-1998. " In the counter-affidavit, a copy of which was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 24-2- 1999, it has been stated inter alia to the effect that the ap plication in question was disposed of on 16- 10-1991 appending its copy as An-nexureca-1. Today an application has been filed by the petitioner seeking following amendments in the writ petition: "12-A. That during pendency of the writ petition, before this Hon'ble Court, after service of the copy of the counter-affidavit of the respondents No. 1 and 2 upon the counsel of the petitioner on 24-2-99, petitioner came to know that his application under Section 28-A ( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, has been rejected by the respondent No. 4, vide order dated 16-10-91, which is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable under the law. The true copy of the order dated 16-10-91, passed by the respondent No. 4 is being filed herewith as Annexure No. 4 of this writ petition. " xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx after ground No. 'iii', a new ground as Ground No. 'iv' maybe added in following manner: "iv. Because the impugned order dated '16-10-91, (Annexure No. 4) passed by the respondent No. 4 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. " xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx a new prayer as prayer No. A-l' may be added in following manner: "a-l. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16- 10-91 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition), passed by the respondent No. 4. "
(3.) MR. Umesh Narain Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that since the petitioner was not made aware of the pass ing of the order dated 16-10-91 earlier which was also passed behind his back, the amendments prayed for in the interest of justice be allowed. He also contended that there is nothing in the counter-affidavit to show that it was passed with notice to the petitioner or the petitioner was communi cated the same by the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel Mr. Vishnu Pratap opposed the prayer submit ting that since the cause of action founded in the writ petition was not in existence on the day on which it was held inasmuch as the order disposing of his petition was passed on 16-10-91. Therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to allow the proposed amendments and this writ peti tion is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.;