Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54540 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Sursati Devi & Another Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate & 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manvendra Nath Singh,Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The petitioners have assailed the order dated 30.10.2017 passed on a complaint filed by them. The first respondent has recorded in the impugned order that he made a spot inspection and also inquired from the people and it transpired that Chameli Devi is in possession of the disputed land and had also sown wheat crop over it. Accordingly, the complaint has been disposed of by observing that until a clear order from a competent court is obtained, no interference should be made in the possession of Chameli Devi and the parties have been directed to maintain law and order.
Although initially learned counsel for the petitioners tried to assail the impugned order on the ground that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass such an order on the administrative side, but the said argument was later on given up after realising that the order was passed on the complaint filed by the petitioners themselves.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the findings recorded in the impugned order would come in the way of the petitioners in case the petitioners avail any other legal remedy.
However, in the opinion of the Court, the apprehension of the petitioners is wholly unfounded, as the impugned order which has been passed on the administrative side, would in no manner prejudice the legal proceedings, if any, instituted by the petitioners in a court of law or before any authority, if so permissible under law.
With the aforesaid clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 29.11.2017 SL