RANG LAL MEENA Vs. RAM SWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the original respondent no. 4 has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner whereby the Deputy Secretary has passed an order dt. 10. 1 1997 in favour of the present appellant.

(2.) The facts of the case are that original petitioner preferred the writ petition with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dt. 10. 11. 1999 by which the plot of land measuring 100x100 sq. feet was allotted to respondent no. 4 by the Government in Village Mandawari of Panchayat Samiti Lalsot and State Government as well as Gram Panchayat Mandawari be directed not to act contrary to the judgment passed by this court in favour of the petitioner while rejecting the writ petition of original petitioner of 30. 11. 1994 and we further directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the lands of plot no. 1,2,3 & 4 and not to restrain the petitioner from raising construction on these plots. The petitioner claimed all these reliefs on the premise that the land in question which is part of khasra no. 588/1 was acquired for extension of Abadi by Gram Panchayat through the Government possession of which was handed over to Gram Panchayat Mandawari and its mutation was entered in the name of Gram Panchayat on 7. 1 1970. Gram Panchayat issued public notice for auction of this land on 28. 9. 1977. Auction of the aforesaid plot and other plot took place from 17. 10. 1977 to 2 10. 1977. The appellant-herein encroached upon the said plot after issuance of the public notice on 1. 10. 1977 which was removed on 4. 10. 1977. Challenging the auction and allotment of the plot, appellant filed revision petition before the Additional District Collector which was dismissed on 24. 3. 1984. He then filed the writ petition No. 540/1984 which was also dismissed on 13. 1 1994. Further, DBSAW No. 914/1994 filed by him was also dismissed by division bench vide judgment dt. 28. 3. 1995. Now the vide order dt. 10. 11. 1997 made allotment of the aforesaid land to the appellant on the premise that he was in possession of the same for the last 20 years. This allotment was made to the appellant at DLC rates namely @ 275 per sq. yard which is meant for residential plots.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant contended that on 10. 11. 1997 an order came to be passed against the petitioner which was subject matter of challenge but was suppressed from the learned Single Judge and learned Single Judge has erroneously allowed the writ petition.