Allahabad High Court Refers Question On Dispossession From Land By Administrative Authorities Without Due Process Of Law To Larger Bench
The Allahabad High Court was dealing with a Writ Petition seeking direction to maintain or restore a land in the same position as was previously existing on the spot of property which was dispossessed during the pendency of Second Appeal.
Justice Rajan Roy, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
The Allahabad High Court has referred the question on dispossession from land by administrative authorities without following the due process of law to a larger Bench.
The Lucknow Bench was dealing with a Writ Petition seeking direction to maintain or restore a land in the same position as was previously existing on the spot of property which was dispossessed during the pendency of Second Appeal.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, “In these circumstances, for the reason already stated, considering the important questions involved and as we are not in agreement with the judgment dated 10.12.2024 rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar writ petition bearing Writ - C No. 10291 of 2024, therefore, we are of the opinion that the questions referred hereinafter require consideration by a Bench of such strength as may be constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in terms of Chapter V Rule 6 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.”
The Bench clarified that it is not at all concerned with the rights and title claimed by the respective parties to the land in question whether based on the will or otherwise nor with the right claimed by them to possession.
Advocate Anurag Shukla appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Additional Chief Standing Counsel (ACSC) Manish Mishra, Senior Advocate M.A. Khan, Advocates Ashutosh Ojha, and Anuj Pratap Singh appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioners in this case sought issuance of a Writ Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite Parties to maintain or restore the land of the Petitioners in the same position as was previously existing on the spot of property which was dispossessed by the Opposite Parties during the pendency of the Second Appeal before the High Court.
They further sought issuance of a Writ Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Opposite Parties to take disciplinary action against the authorities who alleged to have illegally dispossessed the Petitioners from their land without adopting any legal procedure and punish the erring officers for impugned illegal action and also to pay the compensation for the damages made under the impugned act to the Petitioners, in the interest of justice.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “We were also informed that when the matter was taken cognizance of by the Police Authorities in pursuance to the letter/ order dated 07.10.2024 one of the petitioners gave in writing to the S.H.O., Police Station- Jaithwara, District- Pratapgarh that if he was not able to get a stay order in the second appeal, then, he will hand over the possession. Great emphasis was laid on this by the applicant seeking impleadment as also the learned Standing Counsel at least initially during the course of hearing, however, we are of the opinion that interference by the Revenue and Police Authorities in such a matter itself was unwarranted and without jurisdiction, therefore, although, the petitioner's counsel denies any such application having been given with a free will, even if it was given, it can not have any legal significance, as, the entire exercise in our opinion is de-hors the law.”
The Court added that any such document given before the police would not have any value in law and these are not issues to be considered or decided before the Revenue or Police Authorities in the manner in which it has been done.
“We are only concerned with the action of an Officer of the State Government in issuing the letter dated 07.10.2024 and the consequential action taken by the State Authorities in taking possession from the petitioners and handing it over to other private opposite parties, as already discussed”, it further said.
The Court, therefore, referred the following questions for consideration by such Bench as may be constituted by the Chief Justice –
"(1) Whether the Co-ordinate Bench has correctly decided Writ - C No. 10291 of 2024; Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. vide its judgment dated 10.12.2024 considering the fact that the challenge in the said writ petition was to an an administrative letter/order the Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow dated 07.10.2024 and the consequential action taken in pursuance to it, by which the petitioner of the said writ petition was dispossessed from land in his possession by administrative authorities without following the due process of law, especially as, validity of such an administrative letter and action consequential thereto, could not be adjudicated in Second Appeal No. 131 of 2024 pending before this High Court at Lucknow, and also as, question of possession was not directly involved in the said proceedings and in fact no such direction was issued by the first appellate Court in its judgment and decree dated 03.04.2024 for dispossession of the petitioners and even if it had been issued, the law prescribes a process for execution of the same under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ?
(2) Whether the letter/order of the Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow dated 07.10.2024 was permissible in law when there was a dispute between the parties as to title and validity of a will deed was subjudice before the Court?
(3) Could the Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow vide his letter/order dated 07.10.2024 and could the district administration, Pratapgarh, in compliance thereof, take possession of the land in question from those in possession i.e. the petitioners and hand it over to the respondents, instead of asking the aggrieved persons to pursue legal remedies in a Court of competent jurisdiction as prescribed in law?
(4) Whether the letter/order of the Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow dated 07.10.2024 and action taken in pursuance thereof does not circumvent the procedure prescribed in law for obtaining possession through statutory remedies which may be prescribed, such as, a suit for possession or ejectment under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or such other remedies as may be prescribed under the relevant statute and whether the letter/order dated 07.10.2024 and action taken as a consequence thereof is not destructive of the basic principle of rule of law?"
Accordingly, the High Court placed the records before the Chief Justice.
Cause Title- Raj Lakshmi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. thru. its Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:36501-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Anurag Shukla and Birendra Pratap Singh.
Respondents: ACSC Manish Mishra, Senior Advocate M.A. Khan, Advocates Ashutosh Ojha, and Anuj Pratap Singh.
