The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has referred important legal questions to a larger bench on the issue of dispossession carried out by administrative authorities without recourse to due legal procedure. The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the referral order on June 26, 2025, in Writ-C No. 11176 of 2024 (Smt. Raj Lakshmi and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others).
Background:
The petitioners had approached the Court alleging that they were forcibly dispossessed from their land on 17.11.2024 “by the local police and revenue officials during pendency of a Second appeal bearing No.131 of 2024 (Smt. Raj Laxmi and Others vs. Smt. Usha Singh and Others)”. This action, they claimed, was undertaken “without following procedure prescribed in law and without any notice or opportunity”.
The dispossession was reportedly carried out based on an administrative letter dated 07.10.2024, issued by Dr. Sanjeev Gupta, the then Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., addressed to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. The Court noted:
“Dispossession is alleged on Administrative orders which are prima facie de hors the provisions of law.”
Court’s Observations:
After hearing the parties and reviewing affidavits from the authorities involved, the Court observed:
“The process of law is being interfered and flouted by the administrative authorities. If there is a decree of a Civil Court, it can be executed by Executing Court as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.”
“It is not a case where any direction was issued by the Executing Court in compliance of which dispossession has taken place.”
The Court expressed surprise that:
“The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. could write a letter dated 07.10.2024 to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh for dispossession of the petitioners in the garb of getting alleged illegal encroachment removed…”
It was admitted by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh in his affidavit that the petitioners were dispossessed “only in pursuance to the letter/order of the then Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow dated 07.10.2024”. The authorities later restored possession on 05.05.2025, following an order issued on 03.05.2025 after realizing their mistake. The Court recorded:
“Apology has been tendered. Nevertheless, this writ petition is still required to be decided.”
The then Secretary (Home), Dr. Sanjeev Gupta, also filed an affidavit and admitted:
“A bonafide action was taken in pursuance to aforesaid representation dated 07.10.2024 in order to secure the security and safety of a helpless senior citizen lady and the letter dated 07.10.2024 was issued.”
However, the Court reiterated the principle that:
“The State Authorities could not step in and dispossess the petitioners nor could they have handed over the possession…by administrative action, with the help of police force.”
“The legal position in our opinion is very well settled in this regard.”
Legal Framework and Reference to Precedents:
The Court cited various decisions including Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, noting the Supreme Court’s caution:
“The executive action taken in this case by the State and its officers is destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law.”
The Bench remarked that even if someone is in illegal possession:
“He has to be evicted following the procedure prescribed under the law.”
The Court further added:
“Any such document given before the police would not have any value in law.”
Referral to Larger Bench:
Noting its disagreement with a previous decision in Writ-C No. 10291 of 2024, the Court invoked Chapter V Rule 6 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, and referred four questions for consideration by a larger bench. The Court stated:
“We are of the opinion that the questions referred hereinafter require consideration by a Bench of such strength as may be constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice.”
The referred questions include:
(1) “Whether the Co-ordinate Bench has correctly decided Writ – C No. 10291 of 2024; Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. vide its judgment dated 10.12.2024…”
(2) “Whether the letter/order of the Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow dated 07.10.2024 was permissible in law when there was a dispute between the parties as to title…”
(3) “Could the Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow vide his letter/order dated 07.10.2024 and could the district administration, Pratapgarh… take possession of the land…”
(4) “Whether the letter/order of the Secretary (Home)… is not destructive of the basic principle of rule of law?”
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Court held:
“We make it clear that we are not at all concerned with the rights and title claimed by the respective parties… We are only concerned with the action of an Officer of the State Government in issuing the letter dated 07.10.2024 and the consequential action taken…”
The matter will now be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate Bench. The records of the earlier Writ-C No. 10291 of 2024 have been directed to be tagged with this petition.
Case Title: Smt. Raj Lakshmi and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others
Case No.: Writ-C No. 11176 of 2024
