In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has sharply criticized the Prayagraj District Administration for unlawfully intervening in a private property dispute. The Division Bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal directed the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, to restore possession of the disputed property to the petitioner, as it stood before the administrative interference on July 22, 2024.
The petitioner, Arun Prakash Shukla, represented by advocates Devansh Mishra, Saumitra Anand, and Shashwat Anand, approached the High Court seeking protection of his possession over property located in Mauja Katra Dayaram, Soraon, Prayagraj. The property was purchased from Ram Naresh Mishra, whose heirs contested the transaction, alleging the vendor’s incapacity. This challenge was dismissed by the trial court in 2013, affirming the petitioner’s possession. An appeal is currently pending without any injunction order.
Controversial Intervention by the Administration:
Despite the ongoing appeal, Respondent No. 5, Rama Kant, claimed forcible dispossession and approached the District Administration. Acting on this claim, the administration illegally intervened, conducted an inquiry, and restored possession to Rama Kant, relying on revenue records. This action, carried out with police assistance, effectively evicted the petitioner from the property.
The petitioner’s counsels argued that the District Administration’s actions were unlawful and without any legal authority, given the absence of any court order supporting such intervention. Conversely, Respondent No. 5, represented by counsel Prabhakar Awashti, contended that administrative action was necessary to restore possession. The Court, however, rejected this argument, highlighting the jurisdictional limits of administrative bodies.
Court’s Findings and Observations:
The High Court strongly disapproved of the District Administration’s actions, emphasizing that it lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate civil disputes over immovable property. The Bench noted that the administration’s role is confined to maintaining law and order under Sections 107 and 116 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 105D Cr.P.C.) and cannot extend to deciding questions of possession or title.
“We cannot approve of the action of the District Administration in removing the petitioner from the possession of the land by assuming the role of adjudicator, which does not vest in the State authorities.”
Judgment and Directions:
The Court directed the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, to withdraw the unauthorized interference and restore possession to the petitioner as it existed before July 22, 2024. Additionally, the administration was instructed to provide adequate police protection to ensure that the restoration process is carried out peacefully.
The court emphasized that the action was taken solely to rectify the unauthorized administrative intervention and clarified that the dispute regarding title and possession would be adjudicated by the Appellate Court, where the appeal is still pending.
The High Court, by clearly delineating the separation of powers, reaffirmed that civil disputes over possession and title must be resolved by the judiciary, not by administrative intervention.
The Allahabad High Court granted immediate relief to the petitioner while also setting a significant legal precedent, emphasising that administrative authorities respect judicial boundaries in civil disputes.
This landmark decision is expected to influence future cases involving property disputes in Uttar Pradesh and beyond, ensuring that legal adjudication remains within the exclusive purview of civil courts and not administrative authorities.
The decision also protects property owners from unauthorized state actions and reinforces the principle that administrative authorities must act strictly within the bounds of their statutory powers.
Case title: Writ-C No. 28553 of 2024
Counsels for petitioner: Devansh Mishra, Saumitra Anand, Shashwat Anand
Counsels for respondent: Prabhakar Awasthi
Bench: Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
