Disposed¶18

Jitendra Sagar @ Jitendra Kumar Sagar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2023WRIC/14771/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Certiorari against Lekhpal/revenue report not maintainable — report neither judicial nor quasi-judicial; quashing of revenue appeal proceedings refused where challenged order not annexed and appellate remedy available; no grievance lies against mere submission of report when civil suits pending and administrative orders stayed/recalled following earlier Allahabad HC order in Writ-C 15827/2019 (Dushyant Lawaniya); title and possession of immovable property sole prerogative of civil court; 1129-day delay condoned; plot No.344-Ka, Agra; WRIT-C 14771 of 2023, decided 17.5.2023, Kshitij Shailendra, J.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; both prayers declined and the writ petition disposed of with observations (delay of 1129 days in filing condoned). ¶18

Jitendra Sagar @ Jitendra Kumar Sagar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; both prayers declined and the writ petition disposed of with observations (delay of 1129 days in filing condoned).

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari can be issued to quash the report dated 29.11.2019 submitted by the Lekhpal/revenue authorities (prayer no.(i)). +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

No writ of certiorari can be issued to quash any report submitted by any authority; the report is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial order, therefore prayer no.(i) cannot be granted.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The delay/laches of 1129 days in filing the petition is ignored and condoned keeping in view the nature of the order proposed to be passed.

¶6

Key takeaways

Prayer no.(ii) for quashing the entire proceedings of Appeal No. T202101010105695 cannot be granted: the petitioners did not annex the order dated 18.05.2004 challenged in the appeal, and it is for the appellate authority to examine the grounds; the petitioners, being parties to the appeal, have full opportunity to contest the matter on merits or otherwise.ratio¶14
Since civil litigation is pending between the parties, this Court had restrained administrative action in the previous round, and the administrative orders themselves were stayed and subsequently recalled, the petitioners cannot be aggrieved by the mere submission of a report by the revenue authorities unless any order contrary to the direction issued by this Court in the previous round of litigation is passed.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Kshitij Shailendra, J.), WRIT - C No. 14771 of 2023, decided 17.5.2023. Petitioners, claiming occupancy and possession of plot No.344-Ka amid pending civil suits (O.S. No.724 of 2005, withdrawn, and O.S. No.186 of 2016 filed by respondent no.3), sought (i) certiorari to quash a Lekhpal report dated 29.11.2019 recording that they had transferred their entire land in 1968, and (ii) quashing of the entire proceedings of Appeal No. T202101010105695 filed by respondent no.3 against an order dated 18.05.2004. Held: (1) no writ of certiorari can be issued to quash a report submitted by any authority, the report being neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial order — prayer (i) refused; (2) prayer (ii) refused since the order dated 18.05.2004 challenged in the appeal was not annexed and it is for the appellate authority to examine the grounds, the petitioners being parties to the appeal with full opportunity to contest on merits; (3) with civil litigation pending, the Court having earlier stayed administrative action in Writ-C No.15827 of 2019 (Dushyant Lawaniya) and the authorities having recalled those orders, the petitioners are not aggrieved by the mere submission of a revenue report unless an order contrary to the Court's earlier direction is passed; (4) observed that the question of title and possession over immovable property is the sole prerogative of the civil court. Delay of 1129 days condoned; writ petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107257

¶2

Court No. - 52

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14771 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Jitendra Sagar @ Jitendra Kumar Sagar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chhaya Gupta,Sujeet Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶6

This petition has been reported to be beyond time by 1129 days, however keeping in view the nature of the order proposed to be passed, the aforesaid laches/ delay are hereby ignored and condoned.

¶7

Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

The petitioners claim to be occupant in possession of plot No.344-Ka. It appears that there was a dispute regarding title and possession in between the petitioners and the respondent no.3 as a result whereof, two civil suits were filed i.e. Original Suit No.724 of 2005 which was filed by the petitioners and Original Suit No.186 of 2016 which was filed by the respondent no.3. It is contended that Original Suit No.724 of 2005 has already been withdrawn.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at one stage when the respondent no.3 was interfering in the possession of the petitioner, he approached the administrative authorities and interim orders were passed by the Additional City Magistrate and SubDivisional Officer, Agra respectively, on 13.03.2018 and 03.04.2019 in the nature of injunction regarding interference and non interference. The respondent no.3 filed Writ-C No.15827 of 2019 (Dushyant Lawaniya Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) in which this Court by taking into consideration pendency of the civil suits between the parties, stayed the orders dated 13.03.2018 and 03.04.2019 on the ground that no such orders could be passed on administrative side when the civil suit is already pending. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid writ petition is pending and during pendency thereof, the aforesaid orders dated 13.08.2018 and 03.04.2019 have already been recalled.

¶10

This petition has been filed with a grievance that despite the aforesaid proceedings, the Lekhpal has submitted a report on

¶11

17.10.2019/29.11.2019 mentioning that the petitioners have already transferred their entire land in the year 1968 and that they have taken possession over the property of the opposite parties, i.e. the respondent no.3, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that apart from this, an appeal has also been filed by the respondent no.3 against some order dated 18.05.2004 stating that since pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ-C 15827 of 2019, the order dated 13.03.2018 has already been withdrawn, the petitioners have no right over the property.

¶12

This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned report dated 29.11.2019 with a further prayer that the entire proceedings of Appeal No. T202101010105695 be also quashed.

¶13

In sum and substance, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once this Court has already taken a view that civil suit is pending between the parties, no interference can be made on the administrative side.

¶14

Be that as it may, no writ of certiorari can be issued to quash any report submitted by any authority. In the opinion of the Court, the report is neither a judicial or a quasi judicial order and, therefore, prayer no.(i) cannot be granted. In so far as prayer no.(ii) is concerned i.e. quashing of the entire proceedings of Appeal No. T202101010105695, learned counsel for the petitioners has not annexed copy of the order dated 18.05.2004 against which respondent no.3 has filed the aforesaid appeal. Even otherwise, it is for the appellate authority to examine the grounds taken in the appeal and the petitioners being parties to the said appeal have full opportunity to contest the matter on merits or otherwise. Therefore, even prayer no.(ii) also cannot be granted.

¶15

In so far as the third prayer i.e. any other order or direction, which this Court may deem fit and proper is concerned, I find that once civil litigation is pending between the parties and this Court restrained the administrative action taking note of the said situation and, ultimately, not only orders passed on administrative side were stayed but, subsequently, the authorities themselves recalled the same, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by mere submission of report by the revenue authorities unless any order contrary to the direction issued by this Court in the previous round of litigation is passed.

¶16

Needless to say that question of title and possession over

¶17

immovable property is the sole prerogative of the civil court.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 AKShukla/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Sagar @ Jitendra Kumar Sagar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Sagar @ Jitendra Kumar Sagar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ashok Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mustaq Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Babu Singh @ Guddu Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivpal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others