Disposed¶14

Rajkumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2025WRIC/21251/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 166/167 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act; jurisdiction; Sub Divisional Magistrate; Additional District Magistrate; S.D.M.; status quo; interim order; section 210 U.P. Revenue Code 2006; section 333 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act; revision; khasra no. 597; village Nagla Chamru; Tehsil Dadri; District Gautam Budh Nagar; counter affidavit; Rajkumar v. State of U.P.; Sudheer Kumar Jain; Rakesh Kumar; Allahabad High Court; Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

What did the court decide?

Interim order only: respondents granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter, matter to be listed thereafter; in the meantime parties directed to maintain status quo. No final adjudication; the jurisdiction question (ADM vs SDM under Section 166/167 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act) remains open. ¶14

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the Additional District Magistrate had jurisdiction to exercise the power under Section 166/167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the petitioner contending that this power has to be exercised by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

¶10

Court's answer

At the interlocutory stage the Court recorded that learned Standing Counsel, while opposing the writ petition, could not deny that the power under Section 166/167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is with the S.D.M.; the jurisdiction question was left open for consideration after counter affidavits.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Interim direction that the parties maintain status quo in the meantime, pending further orders.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.), WRIT - C No. 21251 of 2024, Rajkumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others, order dated 6.1.2025 - Writ petition seeking certiorari against (i) order dated 22.02.2024 of respondent no. 2 in revision/case no. 477 of 2024 under section 210, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; (ii) order dated 04.04.2024 of respondent no. 2 in case no. 881 of 2024 under section 333, U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950; and (iii) order dated 27.12.2023 of respondent no. 3 in case no. 01027 of 2020 under section 166/167, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, along with mandamus against interference with possession over parts of khasra no. 597, village Nagla Chamru, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Petitioner contended that the power under Section 166/167 vests in the Sub Divisional Magistrate and not the Additional District Magistrate, relying on Writ C No. 18585 of 2023 (Sudheer Kumar Jain) and Writ C No. 6446 of 2012 (Rakesh Kumar); learned Standing Counsel, while opposing the petition, could not deny that the power is with the S.D.M. Matter requires consideration; counter affidavit in four weeks, rejoinder in two weeks thereafter; parties directed to maintain status quo in the meantime.

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21251 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajkumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

¶7

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 1) in revision/case no. 477 of 2024 (Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. and others) with computer case no. C202411000000477 under section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code2006, judgment and order dated 04.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 2) in case no. 881 of 2024 (Rajkumar Versus state of U.P.) with computer case no. C202411000000881 under section 333 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and judgment and order dated 27.12.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 3) in case no. 01027 of 2020 (State Vs Kamlesh and others) with computer case no. D202011270001027 under section 166/167 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950.

¶8

II. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peace full possession of the plots/land in question and not demolish the constricted house i.e., in area 150 sq. guz i.e., 125.415 sq. meter in part of khasra no. 597 and area 55 sq. guz i.e., 45.98 sq. meter in part of khasra no. 597, situated in village Nagla Chamru, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar."

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in proceedings under Section 166/167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R Act, an order has been passed against the petitioner by the Additional District Magistrate. Revision against the said order has also been dismissed. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the power under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act has to be exercised by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as held by this Court in judgments passed in Writ C No. 18585 of 2023 (Sudheer Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) and Writ

¶10

C No. 6446 of 2012 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others). The Additional District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to exercise the power under Section 166/167 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act.

¶11