Allahabad High Court
Man Singh vs Additional/Collector Sadar And 4 ... on 21 September, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183142
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26242 of 2023
Petitioner :- Man Singh
Respondent :- Additional/Collector Sadar And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Sharan Tomar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri J.S. Tomar, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Mohit Sharan Tomar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyendra Bhushan Dubey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1,2 and 6.
2. The present petition has been filed for seeking quashing of the order dated 13.07.2023.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that initially the petitioner executed sale deeds in favour of respondent nos.3 to 5 and later on he preferred suit for cancellation of the said sale deeds in shape of Suit Nos.1 of 2023 and 2 of 2023 wherein injunction application is still pending, respondent nos.3 to 5 being defendants in the above mentioned suits, put their appearances and preferred objection and the same is pending before Civil Judge (J.D.), Bareilly. During pending of the aforesaid suits, respondent nos.3 to 5 preferred an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bareilly wherein respondent no.2 has been directed to restrain the petitioner if any construction work is being carried out by respondent nos.3 to 5 over plot nos.564 to 569 wherein 513.97 square meter has already been sold out by the petitioner but later on, for the same plots and same area, suit for cancellation of sall deed has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Order dated 13.07.2023 has been put under challenge specifically on the ground that without holding any proceedings, respondent no.6 acted illegal while passing the impugned order in favour of respondent nos.3 to 5. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relief upon a judgment of the Division Bench of the Court passed in the case of Devmani Vs. State of U.P. and others (2019 1 ADJ 870), wherein Division Bench of this Court held that the Sub Division Magistrate is having no power to issue any injunction order against any private person to interfere in the possession of the other person. The operative paragraph of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"6. In addition to above, we find that the Sub Divisional Magistrate being an administrative Officer has no power to issue any injunction order against any private person to interfere in the possession of the other person. In case an application was filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate in respect of the property dispute, the appropriate course open to him was ask to the parties to approach the appropriate Court to resolve their dispute. The Sub Divisional magistrate has assumed the jurisdiction of a Civil/Revenue Court and has passed the restrain order. To our repeated query to the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out the authority of law under which the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed the order but he failed to point out any provision of the law which cloth the administrative officer to pass the injunction order.
7. The experience reveals that the Sub Divisional Magistrates are passing such type of order in a large number of cases. We find that the orders passed by the Administrative Officer interfering in the matter of property dispute where title dispute is involved are wholly without jurisdiction. An administrative officer cannot direct the Police to help a party in title dispute."
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and having full agreement with the aforesaid judgment, order dated 03.07.2023 passed by respondent no.6 is hereby quashed and set aside.
6. The present petition is allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 21.9.2023
Vivek Kr.
