Title: Prem Prakash Yadav v. Union Of India Thru Secy.Min.Of Urban Planning And Development
Citation: WRIT – C No. – 3990 of 2014
Decided on: 21.11.2023
Coram: Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manish Kumar
Introduction
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that while a petitioner has the freedom to select the forum for filing a writ petition, moving between two jurisdictions without valid reasons is not allowed. The court also noted that, according to Clause-14 of the United Provinces High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, petitions filed in Lucknow can be transferred to Allahabad by the Chief Justice of the High Court sitting in Lucknow, but the opposite transfer is not permissible.
Facts of the case
The petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, asserts himself as a tenant of House No. 23, Stanley Road, Allahabad, constructed on Nazul land registered under Plot No. 22 AA in the name of Smt. Chandrakala Devi. In 2001, approval was granted to convert the Nazul land to freehold for her legal heirs, who subsequently executed a sale deed in favor of private respondents. In 2014, the government implemented a policy revising rates for Nazul property conversion and altering the Nazul policy. The petitioner contested this policy, particularly Clause 10 of the 04.03.2014 notification, and sought to invalidate the sale deed executed by the state in favor of Smt. Chandrakala Devi’s legal heirs. The petitioner requested a mandamus to prevent interference in his possession of House No. 23, Stanley Road, Allahabad, situated on Nazul Plot No. 22AA. Private respondents raised a preliminary objection, questioning the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner had already approached the principal bench of the Allahabad High Court for directions to the state to execute a sale deed in his favor.
Court’s observation and analysis
The court expressed the view that a petition initiated in Allahabad cannot be moved or considered in Lucknow. Consequently, the filing of petitions with analogous requests cannot be accommodated in Lucknow if the case is already in progress at the Principal Bench. The court noted that the petitioner was obligated to reveal the existing writ petitions in the initial paragraph of the writ petition, as mandated by Chapter 22, Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs Union of India and Another, the Court held that the petitioner was forum hunting and not forum conveniens.
“In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) and Krishna Veni Nagam (supra), Supreme Court has held that plaintiff/petitioner alone does not have exclusive discretion to choose jurisdiction when the same lies at multiple places. In appropriate cases, Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction and fix jurisdiction taking into consideration the convenience of parties, witnesses, The court emphasized that the petitioner has control over their petition. Nevertheless, if the petitioner decides to file petitions in Allahabad, especially if they are pending, it is essential to disclose this information in the opening paragraph of the petition. The court asserted that the petitioner must select a single forum for litigation concerning a specific cause of action. It was emphasized that the petitioner, as the initiator of the petition, should not be allowed to cause inconvenience to the court or unnecessarily keep the list pending in a bifurcated manner. The court further stated that the petitioner cannot be permitted to shift between forums at their discretion.
Hence, the petition was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Amrita Rout
