Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9130 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Murya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Kant Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Piyush Kant Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
On 22.07.2021, the Court had granted time to the petitioner to address the Court on the question of maintainability.
Today, when the matter was taken up, the counsel for petitioner has placed before this Court the decision of the Division Bench referred on 16.04.2014 in Writ-C No.21415 of 2014 (Irsad Vs. State of U.P.), which is quoted herein as under:-
"The petitioner has moved this proceeding stating that he is a co-sharer in plots no. 177 and 178, situated in Mauja Katauli Buzurg, Pargana Devgaon, Tehsil- Lalganj, District Azamgarh.
The fourth respondent filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haveli, Azamgarh (Original Suit No. 381 of 2014) in which the petitioner and the fifth respondents who are brothers have been impleaded as the first and second defendants, whereas respondents 6, 7 and 8 who are sons of the fourth respondent-plaintiff were also impleaded as defendants. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) did not grant any interim injunction but by an order dated 3 March 2014 issued notice and directed a spot inspection by a Commissioner. The petitioner has stated that on 9 March 2014, while he was carrying out construction on the portion of the land which has fallen to his share, the third respondent sought to raise an obstruction.
The grievance in these proceedings is that the third respondent, who is the officer Incharge of the Police Station, is now coercing the petitioner not to carry out any construction though the fourth respondent has failed to obtain an injunction before the Trial Court.
At the outset, we make it clear that the issue as to whether the construction which is carried out by the petitioner is or is not within his holding, as claimed, cannot be determined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present proceeding. We are, however, entertaining the petition only on the basis of the grievance that the third respondent, who is the officer Incharge of the Police Station, has taken the law in his own hands and despite the fact that the fourth respondent has failed to obtain an interim injunction, is using extra judicial methods to coerce the petitioner. We have no manner of doubt that it is not open to the police authorities to arrogate to themselves powers which are not conferred upon them by law. Any such coercive methods would be violative of the rule of law. The fourth respondent is entitled, in the pending suit, to seek all possible reliefs which are legitimately open. However, a police officer would have no justification whatsoever to exercise those powers which are to be exercised by the civil court on an adjudication of facts between litigating parties.
We, however, clarify that these observations are only confined to deal with the allegation against the third respondent and shall not amount to any expression of opinion by the Court on the rights inter se as claimed by the petitioner and the private respondents, which are left to be decided in appropriate proceedings, including those which are pending before the Civil Court.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
From the perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the present case is distinguishable from the said case as in the present case, the partition between the family members of the petitioner under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had already taken place in the year 2019 and the final decree was passed on 23.10.2019, whereby the parties were put in possession of their respective shares. It appears that after some time, some family dispute arose between them and police had challaned the petitioner as well as other parties on 22.02.2021. Copy of the Challani Report has been brought on record as Annexure-11 to the petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of material on record, I find that no case for interference is made out and the judgment placed by petitioner is distinguishable from the fact of the present case.
Writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 SK Goswami