Allowed

Virendra Prasad Madhesiya v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2019WRIC/36726/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash an order by the District Magistrate directing the removal of encroachments from disputed land. The Court held that since a civil suit regarding title and possession was pending, the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to pass the order. The impugned order was set-aside and possession restored to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the District Magistrate is set-aside. The respondents are directed to restore the possession of the land in dispute to the petitioner on or before 16.3.2019.

Virendra Prasad Madhesiya Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36726 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Virendra Prasad Madhesiya Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Chaddha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,H.P. Sahi

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

This petition for writ has been preferred to issue a appropriate writ to quash the order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur directing the Tehsildar Sadar/Senior Superintendent of Police, North to constitute a team for removing encroachment from the land in dispute and to maintain peace and tranquility.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as a matter of fact, the land in question is a subject matter of Suit No.154 of 2010, Surya Narayan Lal Vs.Virendra Prasad Madhesiya pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gorakhpur.

¶7

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is having title over the land aforesaid and that has been challenged by the respondent no.5, Surya Narayan, son of Late Purushottam Lal. It is also brought to our notice that at the instance of the respondent no.5, certain proceedings were initiated as per the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C. 1973, but those were dropped by the competent Magistrate under the order dated 28.4.2015.

¶8

The Magistrate concerned while closing the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. arrived at the conclusion that possession on the land in question and title thereon is subject matter of Civil Suit pending before a competent court. The respondent no.5 after disposal of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of the State which was forwarded to the District Magistrate,Gorakhpur for appropriate action. The District Magistrate,Gorakhpur without verifying the facts and without having any authority, passed the order dated 05.10.2018.

¶9

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government as well as on behalf of the respondent no.5.

¶10

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government as well as on behalf of the respondent no.5 failed to satisfy us about the authority available to the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur to pass an order for removal of illegal encroachments relating to a land which is subject matter of civil suit pertaining to its title and possession.

¶11

Accordingly, the order passed by the District Magistrate,Gorakhpur is not founded on any authority of law, as such it is wholly without jurisdiction, the writ petition hence deserves acceptance.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶13

The order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur is set-aside. The respondents are directed to restore the possession of the land in dispute to the petitioner on or before 16.3.2019.

¶14

While parting with the case, it would be appropriate to observe that the concerned court where the civil suit is pending, shall make all necessary efforts to adjudicate and decide the suit expeditiously without being affected in any manner by this order.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.3.2019 SB

¶16

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J) (Govind Mathur,C.J)

Virendra Prasad Madhesiya v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Prasad Madhesiya v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ragini Awasthi Vs Allahabad Bank Swaroop Nagar Branch and Another

Shiv Ram Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

M/S B.S. Trading Services Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nirmala Rai Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Abbhan Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others