Allowed

Smt. Munni Devi v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023WRIC/25116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an impugned order passed by the Tahsildar restraining her from raising construction on a disputed plot via a miscellaneous application filed by the respondent, and for direction not to interfere. The court set aside the order holding administrative authorities cannot adjudicate private disputes or pass injunctions where civil/criminal proceedings are pending.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order passed by the Tahsildar dated 17.7.2023 / 18.7.2023 set aside; Writ Petition allowed dismissing the application of private respondent.

Smt. Munni Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194952

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25116 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Munni Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Aditya,Nagendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Rai,Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for private respondent no.4.

¶7

The instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.7.2023 / 18.7.2023 passed by the Tahsildar, Sadar, Gorakhpur as well as for mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the construction work of the petitioner.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to plot no.270 area 0.0610 hectare. Both parties are claiming on the basis of registered sale deed alleged to be executed in their favour.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Tahsildar on the miscellaneous application proceeding restraining the petitioner from raising construction which is illegal. He further submitted that no injunction order can be passed by the administrative authorities on the miscellaneous application. He next submitted that there is registered sale deed in the favour of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner cannot be restrained from raising construction over the plot in dispute by the Tahsildar concerned without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He also submitted that the impugned order dated 17.7.2023 passed by the Tahsildar on the application dated 18.7.2023 be set aside. He further placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 11.8.2022 passed in Writ- C No.20102 of 2022 (Vijai vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others) in order to demonstrate that the administrative authorities have no jurisdiction to pass injunction order or adjudicate the private dispute.

¶10

On the other hand, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent submitted that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is illegal. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot raise construction over the plot in dispute as respondent no.4 is in possession over the same. He next submitted that the civil Suit No.1372 of 2020 for injunction filed against the petitioner is pending before the Civil Judge

¶11

(Junior Division), Court No.1, Gorakhpur. He next submitted that the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. being Case No.01738 of 2021 is also pending before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gorakhpur. He also submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶13

It is well settled that the administrative authorities cannot interfere in the private dispute between the parties.

¶14

In the instant matter, the Tahsildar concerned has restrained the petitioner from raising construction on the miscellaneous application filed by private respondent in ex-parte manner.

¶15

The civil suit as well as the criminal proceeding are stated to be pending before the Court concerned.

¶16

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijai (supra) has held as under in Paragraph nos.27, 28 & 29 of the judgment:

¶17

"27. The present case is a glaring example of encroaching and over reaching the realm of the Civil Court on the part of the respondent-authorities. Although the respondent no. 2 has taken a stand that he was not aware of the pendency of the civil appeal, but the action of the respondent no. 2 even after submission of the reports by the revenue officials does not seem convincing to this Court from any angle. The authorities concerned ought not to have exercised administrative power for entering into the disputed property and issue order for delivery of possession etc against one or the other party. This primarily should be left to the competent court of civil jurisdiction.

¶18

28. The very issuance of advisory by the Government of UP dated 3.8.2022 vide No. 1291/EK-2022/9-RA-9 pursuant to the Government order dated 16.10.2015 is evident of the fact that even the Government of UP is not oblivious to the exercise of excessive administrative powers by the execution in civil dispute relating to immovable properties between private individuals. It is high time that the said advisory acts like yet another reminder to all the executive authorities to desist from taking any action in a dispute relating to immovable properties of private persons and especially when the matter is pending in a civil court as in the present case.

¶19

29. Having noted the effort of the Government of UP in issuing the aforesaid advisory, this Court further expects that the Government should also prescribe consequential effect against the erring officers and provide for remedial steps by framing high level committee of senior officers at the Government level, which should include the Revenue Secretary so that not only accountability can be fixed but a redressal forum be available to the victims and this Court is not flooded with similar kinds of litigations in future."

¶20

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar dated 17.7.2023 / 18.7.2023 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby set aside.

¶21

The writ petition stands allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Rameez

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Munni Devi v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Munni Devi v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Al Hussain Frozen Foods Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sheetla Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lallan Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Vs District Magistrate Jaunpur and 4 Others

Rakesh Gandhi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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