Allowed

Manoj Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2019WRIC/42026/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order by the Tehsildar directing maintenance of status quo in a land dispute. The court held the Tehsildar lacked executive power to issue such directions and quashed the order, directing parties to approach the competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by Tehsildar directing maintenance of status quo.

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 37

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42026 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pandey,Sriprakash Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sriprakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

By means of this writ petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 31.10.2019 passed by Tehsildar, Attara, DistrictBanda by which a direction has been issued to the parties to maintain status quo with regard to Araji No. 307 area 0.566 hectares situated in village Basrehi, Atarra district Banda. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed a suit against the petitioners being suit No. 101 of 2019 which is still pending before Civil Judge (JD) Atarra, Banda. The suit is for permanent injunction. In the said suit notices have been issued but no injunction order has been passed and the date fixed is 20.2.2020. It is categorically stated that the subject matter of the suit is same plot No. 307 area 0.566 hectare. Upon application made by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the S.D.M., Attarra, District-Banda referred the matter to the Tehsildar, Attra. The Tehsildar has directed the parties to maintain status quo.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that tehsildar has no power to issue such a direction. These directions can only be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.

¶9

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Apparently the Tehsildar does not have any power to issue such a direction to the parties to maintain status quo in the capacity of his executive authority. As such, the order of the Tehsildar dated 31.10.2019 filed as Annexure-2 cannot be sustained and it is hereby quashed.

¶10

In case the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have any grievance against the petitioners then they can approach the competent civil court who has jurisdiction for redressal of their grievance.

¶11

The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Manish Tripathi

¶13

(Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J. )

Manoj Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rati Devi and 03 Others Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Bhagwan Prasad Vs the District Magistrate and 3 Others

Bhopal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amrita Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shobhnath Chauhan and 12 Others Vs Government of India and 3 Others

Sunil Dutt and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others