Dismissed

Kapil Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2021WRIC/21864/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a report recommending action against petitioners for allegedly possessing land without title. The High Court held that disputes over title and ownership pending before civil courts must be resolved by competent civil courts. Administrative authorities were directed not to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The court clarified that the impugned report is not a basis for dispossession and directed administrative authorities not to interfere in private land title disputes.

Kapil Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21864 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Kapil Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Singh,Amit Saxena (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

This petition is directed against a report/recommendation dated 28th July, 2021 contained in annexure 4 to the writ petition, which records that petitioners have no title or authority to remain in possession over the land in question and that appropriate steps ought to be taken against them as per law. Recommendation has also been made to the electricity department to take note of such fact and to proceed as per law. A similar endorsement has also been made to the excise department. The report appears to have been submitted by two administrative authorities on the basis of a direction issued by the Divisional Commissioner.

¶6

Sri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit that issues of title in respect of the property in question is already engaging attention of the civil court and certain grievance is also pending before this Court in a Second Appeal and, therefore, any dispute in respect of title or ownership of the land must be left to be resolved by the competent court and the interference by the administrative authorities in such circumstances is wholly without authority of law.

¶7

Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.K. Tiwari for the private respondents states that the order impugned in fact is merely a report and that petitioners' have no right title or interest over the land in question.

¶8

It is also urged that petitioners are trespassers and, therefore, this Court need not entertain the writ petition at their instance.

¶9

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record.

¶10

Facts as emerged on record clearly go to show that there is a serious dispute with regard to ownership and title of private individuals in respect of the land in question, which is engaging the attention of the competent civil court. In view of the settled

¶11

position of law such disputes ought to be left to be resolved by the competent court having jurisdiction in the matter.

¶12

It appears from the impugned report itself that petitioners are in possession and electricity connection, etc. has also been provided to them.

¶13

In such circumstances, any further inquiry into the legality of petitioners possession ought to be left to be resolved by the civil court, particularly when the matter is pending before it.

¶14

Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel fairly states that the impugned order is actually a report and, therefore, none of the rights of the parties are likely to be infringed on the basis of it.

¶15

If that be so, we would only like to clarify that the impugned order would not constitute any basis for any action of dispossession/eviction of private individuals unless there is an order passed by the competent court in accordance with law. We also hasten to add that the administrative authorities would be better advised not to venture into such private disputes relating to ownership of land and the matters in that regard would be left to be resolved by the competent civil court where parties can adduce their evidence and their respective right and title over the land in question could be determined. We also clarify that in the event any decree has attained finality, the parties shall be at liberty to execute the same in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.12.2021 Bhaskar

Kapil Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Hansraj Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Virendra Shankar Sahani Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Shanti Computers Vs State Election Commission and 2 Others

Sahid Khan Vs State of U.P. through its chief Secretary, (Revenue)Lucknow

Rohitash Kumar Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others