Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2086

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
Phoolmati - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14257 of 2024
Decided on : 11-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Azaz Ahmad
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Mrs. Karuna Srivastava and Santosh Kumar Srivastava

Administrative authorities cannot interfere in civil property disputes pending before a competent court, and dispossession must follow due process of law.

Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of Executive Magistrate - The petitioner challenged the order dated 25.3.2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing her to vacate a property, claiming illegal possession. The court emphasized that administrative authorities cannot interfere in civil disputes pending before a competent court. (Paras 1-3, 30-31)

(B) Legal Principles - The court reiterated that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without due process of law, as established in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu. (Paras 26-27)

(C) Government Orders - The court noted the violation of government orders prohibiting executive interference in property disputes. (Paras 31-32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of a property based on a transaction from 1988, while the respondents asserted their rights as legal heirs of the original owner. A civil suit regarding the property was pending. (Paras 4-5)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was illegally dispossessed by the revenue authorities and directed restoration of possession. (Paras 30-36)

Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in property disputes and the legality of the dispossession.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted beyond jurisdiction by interfering in a civil dispute and emphasized the need for due process in dispossession cases.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to restore possession to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam, J.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the records.

2. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs :

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directed the Respondent No. 3 not to dispossess to the petitioner from the house In dispute.''

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 25.3.2024 issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nizamabad, District Azamgarh-respondent No. 3 mentioning therein that the petitioner is illegally occupying the house situated at Gata No. 860 situated at Village- Tahbarpur, District- Azamgarh. In this regard earlier also oral and written directions have been issued to petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the owner but the same has not been complied with. As a last warning you are directed to vacate the premises in dispute within one week and hand over the possession to the owner of the house otherwise, the premises will be vacated by force and damages for the same be also recovered. Notice dated 25.3.2024 impugned in the writ petition is quoted as under :

4. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that Plot No. 860 area 14 kari was recorded in the name of one Chandarbali, who had two daughters. In the year 1988, the father-in-law of the petitioner paid Rs. 3500/- to Chandarbali, the recorded tenure holder/owner of the land for purchase of Plot No. 860, came in possession over the disputed land and has constructed a house on the said plot. The sale-deed however, could not be executed as Chandarbali died. After the death of Chandarbali, name of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was mutated in the revenue records over the plot in dispute as legal heirs. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 wanted to dispossess the petitioner from the house in question. The petitioner, therefore, filed Original Suit No. 313 of 2024 (Phoolmati v. Ramchander and others) for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Azamgarh on 15.3.2024 and the said suit is pending between the parties. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 moved application before the Commissioner Azamgarh, Mandal Azamgarh with the prayer that petitioner be directed to vacate the house in dispute. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application before respondent No. 3 that petitioner be directed to vacate the house in question situated at Gata No. 860 and thereafter, the order dated 25.3.2024 was passed by respondent No. 3.

5. This Court by its previous order dated 1.5.2024 stayed the order passed by the respondent No. 3 dated 25.3.2024 and directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nizamabad, District Azamgarh to file his personal affidavit within a period of three weeks explaining that how such an order has been passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh and under which provision of law. Order dated 1.5.2024 passed by this Court is quoted as under :

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.3.2024 passed by the S.D.M., Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh. By the order impugned, the S.D.M., Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh has directed the petitioner to vacate the house in question on a complaint made by one Sadhu.

3. Let the S.D.M., Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh filed his personal affidavit within a period of three weeks explaining that how such an order has been passed by the S.D.M., Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh and under which provision of law.

4. List this case after three weeks, as fresh.

5. Until further order of this case, the effect and operation of the order dated 25.3.2024 passed by the S.D.M., Nizamabad, District-Azamgarh shall remain stayed.''

6. Thereafter, the personal affidavit has been filed by respondent No