Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28880 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shri Krishna Mishra
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Petitioner's father has already instituted Original Suit No.705 of 2011 against the private persons namely Sharif Ahmad and Shanu seeking injunction in respect of the property in question, which is stated to be pending. The defendants have already entered appearance and have filed their written statement. It appears that private persons have approached the administrative authorities and a direction has been issued for removal of petitioner's construction. Thus aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the issue is engaging attention of the civil court the authorities ought to await the outcome of the suit and cannot pass orders in exercise of their administrative jurisdiction to remove the construction in question.
Sri S.K. Mishra has entered appearance on behalf of Shahanwaj @ Shanu son of Sharif Ahmad and it is stated that petitioner has absolutely no right over the land in question.
From the materials brought on record it transpires that an original suit has already been instituted by the petitioner's father, which is pending consideration.
In the event petitioner or his father are not recorded or their construction is upon the State land, it is always open for the authorities to institute appropriate proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, or else the authorities would have to await the outcome of the proceedings pending before the civil court. However, without instituting any proceedings, known to law, the authorities would not be justified in demolishing petitioner's construction. Law is otherwise settled that issues relating to right over immovable property can only be determined by the competent court and the administrative authorities cannot usurp the power of courts in determining such private rights.
In the facts of the case, we dispose off this writ petition with the observation that the authorities shall not demolish petitioner's construction pursuant to the orders passed on the representation of the private persons, unless appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, are initiated and orders are passed therein. It shall also be open for the petitioner to press his pending suit. We further provide that the pending proceedings before the civil court would be concluded, by fixing weekly dates, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties except on payment of costs, which shall not be less than Rs.1,000/- for a day.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Anil