Failure to disclose previous legal proceedings and abuse of the PIL jurisdiction can lead to the dismissal of a writ petition.

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

The petition which is filed purportedly in the public interest, as we will now indicate, is a complete abuse of the process of the Court. The relief which the petitioner seeks is as follows:

"a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents especially respondent no.3, 4 and 5 to forthwith remove the unauthorised possession from the public utility land (Khalihan, Kabristan, Chak Roads etc.) situated in Village/Town Area Dobhi, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur."

2. The land which forms the subject matter of the dispute is specified in paragraph 10 of the writ petition as Plot No.257 which is alleged to be recorded as a Graveyard and Kabristan and Plot Nos.841 and 843 as a Kabristan. The petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition before this Court (PIL No.21140 of 2014) which was dismissed with the following order:

"The petitioner has sought initiation of steps under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 in respect of certain lands situated as Arazi No.257Gha/0.0890 (graveyard), 258Kha/0.240 (Graveyard), 256Kha/0.004 (Talab) and 257ga/0.0240 (Khalihan) in village Dobhi Pargana Anguli, Tehsil Shahgan, district Jaunpur. The persons who would be directly affected by the issuance of any order of this Court under Section 122-B have not been impleaded. The petitioner who belongs to the same village should be aware of the persons who have allegedly committed the acts of encroachment.

Without hearing the affected parties, it would not be possible for this Court to issue any direction for the initiation of steps under Section 122-B.

In the circumstances, we dispose of the petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings including by way of a fresh petition after impleading the necessary parties who are likely to be affected. It would, therefore, not be appropriate for the Court to pass a separate order on the application for impleadment.

The petition is disposed of."

3. This order of the Court dated 15 April 2014 also covers the lands comprised in Plot No.257 Ga and Gha. Moreover, the Court has been apprised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party against whom action has been sought (but has not been impleaded to these proceedings) that the petitioner had himself instituted Suit No.66 of 2014 (now renumbered as OS No.1386 of 2014) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Shahganj, District Jaunpur. A copy of the plaint in that suit has been annexed to the compilation which is produced before the Court by learned counsel Mr. R.N. Yadav. The compilation also contains the reference to an application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 in another suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaunpur.

4. Finally, the Court has been apprised of the fact that proceedings under Section 122-B have been instituted against the petitioner who is an encroacher. In our view, the petitioner was under a bounden obligation to disclose to the Court that he has himself filed an earlier PIL which was dismissed by the Court for the reasons which were indicated. Though liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh proceeding after impleading all the necessary parties even that has not been done. Hence, recourse to the jurisdiction under the PIL is completely an abuse of the process of the Court. We decline to entertain the writ petition.

5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.