Allahabad High Court
Jaleb Shree And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 25 August, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Surendra Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171799-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27570 of 2023
Petitioner :- Jaleb Shree And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Adya Prasad Tewari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Shri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel.
2. Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question Khasra Plot No.66, area 1.081 hect. situated in Village Ismilepur, Tehsil Ghiror, District Mainpuri without following due process established under law;
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 to 4 to provide appropriate and adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioners so that the petitioners may lead healthy and dignified life;
(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to 4 to initiate appropriate inquiry against the erring police officials in respect of the illegal arrest of petitioner no.3 and 5 on 29.7.2023 and to ensure payment of compensation in pursuance of the Government Order dated 23.3.2021."
3. It is contended that the petitioner no.1 is the owner and in actual physical possession of the land in question. The petitioner nos.2 to 5 are her sons. On the basis of report of Tehsildar, Karhal dated 5.5.2008 a case under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (Gaon Sabha v. Jaleb Shree) was registered before the Sub Divisional Officer, Karhal, Distt. Mainpuri, which was decided on 12.8.2008 against the petitioner no.1. It is alleged that the said order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing. Against the said order, the petitioner no.1 had preferred recall application, which was also rejected on 11.2.2011 for want of prosecution. The restoration application filed against the same was also rejected on 16.10.2017. Aggrieved with the order dated 16.10.2017, the petitioner no.1 filed revision under Section 219 of U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, which is stated to be pending consideration. It is contended that the title in respect of the land in question is still with the petitioner no.1 and petitioner nos.2 to 5 are cultivating the land. They are also in actual physical possession of the same. It is alleged that respondent nos.5 to 7, who are police and tehsil officials, in connivance with the respondent nos.8 and 9, are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question and to put respondent nos.8 and 9 in possession of the said land. It is also alleged that to create pressure the police officials have also illegally detained petitioner nos.3 and 5, however, later on released them. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the judgment dated 27.5.2016 in Writ-C No.20186 of 2016 (Charan Kaur v. State of U.P. & Ors.), wherein it is observed that if there is dispute between private parties, the local authorities have no right to interfere with the same without the order of the competent authority/ court.
4. Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has raised objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that highly disputed facts have been urged before this Court, which cannot be adjudicated under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. He next submitted that entire relief has been set up against the private individuals in the guise of alleged intervention of government officials. So far as illegal detention is concerned, no concrete material has been brought on record in this regard. In case there is encroachment by private individual or harassment by the police/government officials, the petitioners have common law remedy either to approach before the civil court or criminal court and as such no interference is required in the matter.
5. We have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that there is property dispute between the petitioners and private respondents and the matter is also engaging the attention of revisional court. It appears that only in the guise of confinement of sons of petitioner no.1, the reason of which is also not ascertained, the petitioners are trying to justify their claim in the present writ petition. Moreover, the petitioners have every right to invoke common law remedy before civil/ criminal court. Once efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 25.8.2023
SP/
