Writ petition challenging dispossession of land by private parties. Court held it cannot interfere or protect possession during pendency of civil suits as rights are unstated, remitting matter to competent civil court while directing police to maintain peace only.
Matter consigned to records.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19754 of 2021
Petitioner :- Yashoda And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Madan Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus restraining the respondent nos.1 to 6, who are the State authorities, not to dispossess the petitioners from land of Khasra Nos.343, area 0.506 and 227, area 0.2355 Hectare situated in Village Dharmpura, Tehsil Sadar, District Mathura without following the due process. It has also been prayed that the authorities be directed to initiate inquiry and to pay compensation on account of unauthorized detention of petitioners by respondent no.7, who happens to be Sub-Inspector of police station concerned. According to petitioners, there is no order passed by any competent Court against them, yet the State authorities are compelling the petitioners to surrender their possession to private respondents and to settle their land dispute. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16386 of 2020 (Shiv Kumar Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), as also Government Order dated 30th January, 2021.
Perusal of records would go to show that petitioners are claiming right over the aforesaid plot of land on the basis of their ancestry for which a pedigree is disclosed in para 4 of the petition. It further transpires from record that part of land of the aforesaid plot number has been transferred, in respect of which Original Suit No.812 of 2020 is pending before the competent court. Another civil suit being Original Suit No.291 of 2020 is also pending, wherein relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 22.12.2020 has been sought. Apparently the sale deed is in favour of petitioner no.1, of which cancellation has been sought in the aforesaid suit. Petitioners, therefore, are also the persons having interest in the suit where substantive right of parties are yet to be dismissed.
During the pendency of the aforesaid suits some incident appears to have occurred on the spot, on account of which criminal proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. have been initiated. In that context the petitioners contend that the private respondents are forcing them to settle their dispute and
to hand over the possession of the land to them.
Since the rights of the parties over the land in question are yet to be established and the proceedings are pending before the civil court, this Court in exercise of writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be justified in interfering in the matter, at this stage, or to protect the possession of one of the parties vis-a-vis other. It is always open for the parties to seek appropriate injunction in the pending proceeding before the civil court. Allegation as to whether the authorities of State are siding with one of the private parties also does not require any scrutiny from this Court, at this stage, inasmuch as a First Information Report has also been lodged in the matter in Case Crime No.361 of 2021 on 15th July, 2021 and the proceedings are pending. This Court therefore refrains from making any observation with regard to claim of either of the parties, on merits, particularly as the issues are yet to be resolved by the competent civil court.
Before concluding, however, it would be appropriate to clarify that in a case of kind where private parties are litigating over their rights, it would not be open for the State authority to take sides and the matter ought to be left to competent court to adjudicate such rights. The State Government has also issued government order, according to which police authorities are not expected to interfere in such circumstances. Any interference by the police authorities has to be as per law, alone. Senior authorities of the State, therefore, shall ensure that none of the police authorities interfere with the private rights of any of the parties and the matter will have to be left to be resolved by the competent court. The role of the police authorities would be restricted to maintenance of peace and tranquility in the locality, and to desist from any attempt to interfere with the possessory rights of the parties.
Subject to the observations made above, this writ petition is consigned to records.
Order Date :- 22.11.2021 D. Tamang
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can interfere to protect possession of petitioners during pendency of civil suits regarding land rights.
Whether State authorities can take sides in private property disputes pending adjudication by competent civil court.
Whether police authorities can interfere with possessory rights of parties in land dispute, settling same to outside agencies.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Kumar Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶4
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16386 of 2020 (Shiv Kumar Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yashoda And 5 Others
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Vikram D. Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
