Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Rishabh Anand Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 25901 of 2023
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Awadhesh Kumar Malviya.
For the Respondents: Abhishek Shukla, Rishi Kant Rai.
Administrative authorities cannot interfere in ongoing civil disputes, ensuring respect for judicial processes and maintaining the status quo.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2006 - Sections 34 and 35 - Administrative interference in civil disputes - The court held that administrative authorities should not interfere in private disputes pending before civil courts, reaffirming the principle established in Vijai vs. State of U.P. 2022 SCC Online All. 548. (Paras 10, 11, 30, 12)
(B) Administrative powers - The court emphasized the need for accountability of administrative officers and warned against misleading the court. (Paras 29, 31)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, recorded as the tenure holder of a disputed plot based on a gift deed, sought to quash an injunction order against him, claiming no jurisdiction for administrative interference as disputes were pending in civil courts.
Findings of Court:
The court directed restoration of possession as it existed prior to a specific date, pending the outcome of the civil litigation.
Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of administrative authorities in ongoing civil disputes and the validity of the injunction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative authorities must refrain from interfering in private disputes already under judicial consideration, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the status quo in ongoing legal matters.
Result: Writ petition allowed; injunction order set aside.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 4/Smt.Urmila Singh and Sri Abhishek Shukla, leaned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plot No. 60, area 0.019 hect. Situated in village Chandanwaha, Tehsil Sadar, District Ghazipur is recorded in the name of petitioner in the revenue records vide order dated 13.10.2022. The particular of the order recording the name of the petitioner over the plot in dispute is mentioned in the remark coloumn of khatauni of 1429-1434 fasli which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Against the order dated 19.01.2011, passed by the Tehsildar recording certain tenure holders over the plot in dispute, an appeal was filed by one Mahendra Pratap Singh which was allowed vide order dated 16.09.2021. The order dated 16.09.2021, allowing the appeal filed by Mahendra Pratap Singh has attained finality. The plot in dispute belongs to one Ram Sunder Singh who sold the same to Smt.Chinta Singh. Three sets of mutation proceedings have been initiated before the Tehsildar, one set of dispute was set up by respondent No. 4/Smt.Urmila Singh, 2nd set of claim was set up by Smt. Ratnawati Devi and 3rd set of claim was set by Smt.Geeta Devi. The Tehsildar vide order dated 03.06.2011 rejected the claim of respondent No. 4/Smt.Urmila Singh and accepted the claim of Smt. Chinta Singh based on the sale deed dated 07.09.2007 executed by Ram Sunder Singh. Smt. Chinta Singh had executed a gift deed in favour of her grandson, i.e. petitioner (Rishabh Anand Singh) on 26.08.2022. On the basis of the gift deed, the petitioner has been recorded in the revenue records and petitioner is stated to be in physical possession over the plot in dispute. The order dated 18.07.2003 has been passed by respondent No. 3/S.D.O. Sadar, Ghazipur, restraining the petitioner from making any interference from the possession of other side in respect to plot No. 60, area 0.019 hect. Hence this writ petition with the following reliefs:
“(a) To, issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 18.07.2023 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition.
(b) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner in any manner.”
3. This Court vide order dated 04.08.2023 directed the learned standing counsel to seek instruction in the matter as well as directed the parties to maintain status quo till the next date fixed in the matter.
4. Learned standing counsel placed the instruction dated 09.09.2023 before the Court, accordingly, the Court has passed an order dated 31.10.2023, directing the counsel for the petitioner to file reply to the instruction placed before the Court.
5. Counsel for the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit dated 08.11.2023 in reply to the facts mentioned in the instruction dated 09.09.2023.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute on the basis of gift deed dated 26.08.2022 as well as petitioner is in physical possession over the plot in dispute, as such, administrative authorities have no jurisdiction to pass any type of injunction against the petitioner. He further submitted that the claim of respondent No. 4/Smt.Urmila Singh has been rejected by the Tehsildar in the proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, as such, the administrative authority cannot pass any type of injunction order in favour of respondent No. 4. He also submitted that the impugned report/order dated 18.07.2023 has been passed against the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Vijai vs. State of U.P. 2022 SCC Online All. 548. He also submitted that one Civil Suit No. 419/2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, impleading respondent No. 4/Smt.Urmila Singh as de
