Smt. Malti Bhadoria vs State of MP and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

Petitioner, in this petition, has prayed for following relief:-

(i) Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the application of petitioner for allotment without getting themselves influenced by the judgment and decree of the civil Court and under the statutory provisions they be further directed to allot the plot to the petitioner.

Any other relief which this Hon''ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioner.

The short grievance put forth by Shri Sharma, is that earlier the petitioner filed a Civil Suit for declaration and permanent injunction with further relief of specific performance. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 15th September, 2010 (Annexure P-4). However, in First Appeal No. 05/2011, this Court by judgment dated 18-04-2013 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Shri Sharma, submits that at present petitioner is ready to pay the price of accommodation as per present rate. Petitioner is already in possession for more than 12 years and, therefore, respondents be directed to consider her representation Annexure P-5. In Annexure P-5, petitioner has stated as under:-

The averment of petitioner in the representation is that there is a finding of possession by the trial Court in its judgment and decree dated 15th September, 2010 and the said finding is not disturbed by this Court.

I do not see any merit in the said contention. Once the judgment and decree is set aside, it became nullity in the eyes of law. [See. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras, followed by Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Kunal Kanti Majee Vs. The Chancellor, Rani Durgawati Vishvavidyalaya and Others, ] Whether or not petitioner is in possession, is a disputed question of facts which cannot be gone into in a writ petition. Merely because petitioner is in possession for more than 12 years as alleged, no relief can be granted to her in a writ petition. The petitioner has not shown any document to show that the respondents have decided to allot the plot in question and, therefore, this Court has no occasion to direct MP Housing Board to decide the representation/candidature of petitioner. Apart from this, the averment in the representation reproduced above runs contrary to the relief clause of the petitioner. In the representation, the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the finding of the trial Court which is set aside whereas in the relief clause, it is mentioned that a direction be given to the respondents to consider the application without getting influenced by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court.

The petition is misconceived and hereby dismissed. No costs.