JUDGMENT By the Court—The writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 9.1.2004 (annexure No. 23) to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 3. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to restore status quo ante and to pay damages and cost of the petition. 2. The bone of contention between the parties is ghata plot No. 80 area 6-14-4 situate in village Dhansari, town area Charra, District Aligarh. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 (Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Atrauli, Aligarh), initiated the proceedings on the direction of respondent No. 2 the District Magistrate, Aligarh, in purported exercise of powers under Section 145, Cr.P.C, although entire proceeding was without jurisdiction. The respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, in collusion with the official machinery attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the above noted plot over which he continues to be in possession for a long time. Nawab Rahmatullah, respondent No. 6 had filed a suit No. 85 of 1974 before the Civil Judge, Aligarh impleading Gauri Shanker and Damodar Shastri as defendants. In that suit, declaration of title was claimed. Subsequently on 25.1.1984, respondent No. 6 moved an application for amendment impleading the petitioner and his brothers and claiming the relief for possession as according to him, the defendants Gauri Shanker and Damodar had given possession to the petitioner. That application was opposed but was allowed and the petitioner and his brothers were impleaded as defendants Ilnd set. Thus, respondent No. 6, admitted in the suit that he was not in possession over the property in dispute. When the writ petition was filed that suit was pending. 3. In collusion with respondent No. 6, Gauri Shanker is alleged to have initiated a proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Atrauli, against the petitioner and his brothers describing the property in dispute, as plot No. 230 in place of plot No. 80. In that matter attachment was obtained by Nawab Rahmatullah and Gauri Shanker and one Damodar was appointed as Supurdgar. Since in that matter, plot No. 230 was mentioned, therefore respondent No. 6 could not succeed in dispossessing the petitioner from the plot No. 80. Respondent No. 6 also got a suit No. 179 of 1982 instituted through Gauri Shanker. In that matter Gauri Shanker also filed an application for temporary injunction. Since in that matter, plot No. 230 was mentioned, therefore respondent No. 6 could not succeed in dispossessing the petitioner from the plot No. 80. Respondent No. 6 also got a suit No. 179 of 1982 instituted through Gauri Shanker. In that matter Gauri Shanker also filed an application for temporary injunction. The property in dispute was not properly described and Gauri Shanker filed an application for amendment substituting plot No. 80 in place of plot No. 230 and also for deleting the word ‘ownership’ and substituting it by ‘lawful occupier’. However, the injunction application as well as amendment application were rejected by the learned Trial Court and the revision and appeal filed against that order were also dismissed by the third A.D.J. vide judgement and order dated 12.8.1983. According to the petitioner in those proceedings it was recorded that petitioner and his brother were in possession of plot No. 80. Against the order of the appellate Court, Gauri Shanker filed a writ petition No. 921 of 1984 in this Court but the same was dismissed by order dated 17.1.1985. 4. The petitioner was running his wood tall and Cinema hall over a portion of the disputed land and some portion was also used for holding cattle fare under valid licence from the District Magistrate. When Gauri Shanker could not succeed in getting injunction, he executed few agreements to sale in respect of plot No. 80 in favour of different persons and an application under Section 145, Cr.P.C. was filed on 6.10.1985 and the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Atrauli directed the petitioner and his brothers to produce the evidence. In that matter the petitioner filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 1019 of 1986 in this Court and the learned S.D.M. was directed to proceed only after taking into consideration the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of Ram Sumer Mahant v. State of U.P. and thereafter those proceedings were consigned by the learned Magistrate. When Gauri Shanker could not succeed in his efforts, he got his civil suit dismissed for non-prosecution. 5. The respondent No. 6 after this long drawn litigation in the eighties executed registered power of attorney in favour of Respondent No. 7 on 9.10.2003 authorising him to raise constructions and to deal in any manner he liked in respect of the property plot No. 80, including its sale. 5. The respondent No. 6 after this long drawn litigation in the eighties executed registered power of attorney in favour of Respondent No. 7 on 9.10.2003 authorising him to raise constructions and to deal in any manner he liked in respect of the property plot No. 80, including its sale. Respondent No. 6 also filed an application on 15.10.2003 for withdrawal of his suit No. 85 of 1974. According to petitioner, objection was filed against the withdrawal application and the learned Civil Judge by order dated 8.10.2004 allowed the plaintiff Nawab Rahmatullah to withdraw his case but imposed special costs to be paid to the defendants. According to petitioner this power of attorney has been executed in collusion with Gauri Shanker and his sons by respondent No. 6 as three sons of Gauri Shanker are witnesses in this power of attorney. The petitioner has further contended that the respondent Nos. 6 (Rahmatullah), 7 (Manoj Kumar) and 8 (Viresh Yadav, who happens to be Member of Legislative Assembly from Gangiri, District Aligarh) have formed a syndicate and in order to grab the land of the petitioner, an application of respondent No. 7 was presented by respondent No. 8 before the District Magistrate as mentioned in the order of Sri S. M. Bogde, District Magistrate, Aligarh (respondent No. 3) in letter No. 2702/ST dated 21.10.2003. Manoj Kumar (respondent No. 7) gave an application on behalf of Nawab Rahmatullah as his Mukhtar-e-aam (annexure No. 18) alleging that he was owner in possession and when he was getting the constructions done on 20.10.2003, Ved Prakash and his brothers along with anti- social elements came there armed with weapons and threatened Manoj Kumar and obstructed the construction work. 6. By his order the respondent No. 3 directed the Station Officer, Chharra, to enquire if any obstructions were being created by Ved Prakash and his brothers in the constructions being made by Manoj Kumar in plot No. 80. He was further directed to direct both the parties to present their papers before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Atrauli. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Atrauli issued an order No. 2509/ST dated 15.11.2003 to Naib-Nazir for informing the concerned parties to appear before him on 24.11.2003 with their evidence (annexure-17). The Sub-divisional Magistrate gave his report No. 2633/ST dated 2.1.2004. According to learned Sub-divisional Magistrate there was dispute about the title over the plot No. 80 between the parties. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, Atrauli issued an order No. 2509/ST dated 15.11.2003 to Naib-Nazir for informing the concerned parties to appear before him on 24.11.2003 with their evidence (annexure-17). The Sub-divisional Magistrate gave his report No. 2633/ST dated 2.1.2004. According to learned Sub-divisional Magistrate there was dispute about the title over the plot No. 80 between the parties. He also mentioned that regarding possession, orders were given by different Courts in favour of both the parties but the title had not been declared by any Court. He also mentioned in his report that name of Nawab Rahmatullah was entered in the records and therefore he was owner and, he having executed power of attorney in favour of Manoj Kumar, he was entitled to make constructions. After considering this report as well as the application and affidavit given by Manoj Kumar stating the criminal history of the petitioner and his brothers, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order and directed that P.A. C. be made available to Manoj Kumar for getting his constructions done in plot No. 80 and that prohibitive action be taken against Ved Prakash and his brothers so that law and order be maintained. 7. Petitioner had initially challenged the proceedings of case No. 2509/ST in this writ petition. But subsequently, when he came to know about the order dated 9.1.2004, the petition was amended and a prayer for quashing that order has also been made. 8. The case of respondent No. 7 as taken in his counter-affidavit is that the writ petition is not maintainable. Nawab Muzmullah Khan Sherwani father of Nawab Rahmatullah respondent No. 6 had gifted the property in dispute in the year 1937 to Gauri Shanker, who continued in peaceful possession. In the year 1973 Nawab Rahmatullah started disturbing peaceful possession of Gauri Shanker and application was filed under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and possession of Gauri Shanker was declared. However the respondent No. 7 has not filed the copy of any such order. It is admitted to respondent No. 7 that Nawab Rahmatullah filed a civil suit No. 85/74. According to him Dakhalnama was issued on 21.4.1982 in favour of Damodar Shastri. The petitioner and his brothers were impleaded as defendants in suit No. 85 of 1974 (para No. 12 of the affidavit). It is admitted to respondent No. 7 that Nawab Rahmatullah filed a civil suit No. 85/74. According to him Dakhalnama was issued on 21.4.1982 in favour of Damodar Shastri. The petitioner and his brothers were impleaded as defendants in suit No. 85 of 1974 (para No. 12 of the affidavit). According to respondent No. 7, there was no purported action under Section 145, Cr.P.C. but administrative enquiry was conducted for maintaining peace and order by the authorities concerned. The facts as stated by the petitioner regarding the suit No. 179 of 1982 filed by Gauri Shanker have not been disputed. According to respondent No. 7, title of the property in dispute was not decided by any Court. Since respondent No. 6 has become too old, he executed the power of attorney, for safeguarding his property, out of his free will. When the petitioner and his brothers threatened to interfere in his possession over this property, he had to move an application dated 21.10.2003 before the District Magistrate. On the direction of District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate enquired the matter and submitted his report and there was no question of forceful dispossession of the petitioner and his brothers. According to respondent No. 7, respondent No. 6 is in possession over the disputed property. He has also denied that the District Magistrate, Aligarh was under the influence of respondent No. 8. The petitioner has no title and possession over the disputed property and therefore has no locus standi to obtain any order in the writ petition. The impugned order is purely administrative order. 9. The Sub-divisional Magistrate has also filed his counter affidavit deposing that in the revenue records Nawab Rahmatullah is entered as owner of the property Ghata No. 80 Mauja Dhansari. In pursuance of the direction issued by the District Magistrate, he had called both the parties and thereafter he gave his report. The orders and report were not in any proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and no proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. had been initiated. After receiving the direction from this Court, the constructions were immediately stopped. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh is without jurisdiction and is illegal. After receiving the direction from this Court, the constructions were immediately stopped. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh is without jurisdiction and is illegal. Nawab Rahmatullah respondent No. 6 was not in possession over the disputed land and admittedly the petitioner was in possession over the disputed land. Respondent No. 6 having failed in his efforts to dislodge the petitioner, clandestinely executed power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7 could not get any better title than the respondent No. 6 himself. The District Magistrate had no power under any law to adjudicate over the right and title or interest of the parties over the immovable properties nor he could pass any prohibitive order as has been done by means of impugned order. He has also contended that the present writ petition is maintainable and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 12. Against it the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7 has contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and the impugned order is only administrative order. He has further contended that Nawab Rahmatullah is the owner of the disputed property and he rightly executed the power of attorney and when respondent No. 7 was making construction on behalf of Nawab Rahmatullah, the petitioner and his brothers obstructed and thereafter he gave an application to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate rightly passed the impugned order. 13. The facts as have come on record show that there is a dispute regarding the title of Ghata No. 80 between the parties. Nawab Rahmatullah respondent No. 6 had filed a suit for declaration of his title in the year 1972 and later added the relief for recovery of possession against the petitioner and his brothers. It has also come on record that during pendency of the suit respondent No. 6 moved application for impleadment of petitioner and his brothers and also alleged that they were in possession of disputed land. The petitioner and his brothers were impleaded as has been admitted by Manoj Kumar respondent No. 7. It has also come on record that during pendency of the suit respondent No. 6 moved application for impleadment of petitioner and his brothers and also alleged that they were in possession of disputed land. The petitioner and his brothers were impleaded as has been admitted by Manoj Kumar respondent No. 7. This application for impleadment was filed in the year 1984 and it shows that admittedly since 1984, the petitioner is in possession over this disputed plot. Respondent No. 7 did not file any document to show that petitioner was ever dispossessed after the year 1984. After executing the power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 7, he moved an application for withdrawal of that case and ultimately that application was allowed. He was permitted to withdraw the suit. However, it is pertinent to mention that he did not seek any permission to file fresh suit for declaration of his title or for recovery of possession. 14. On the basis of the application of Manoj Kumar filed by respondent No. 8 before the District Magistrate, he directed the Station Officer, Chharra, district Aligarh, and thereafter the Sub-divisional Magistrate was also directed to make an enquiry and to give report. According to the S.D.M., he after hearing both the parties submitted his report. He found that Nawab Rahmatullah was the owner as his name was recorded in the revenue records. It is important to mention that in the report given by the S.D.M., he did not mention that Nawab Rahmatuliah was in possession of the disputed land. Even in the Counter affidavit filed by the S.D.M., no such deposition has been made. He has also wrongly mentioned in the report that orders were passed in favour of both the parties by different Courts regarding possessions. There is no order on record to show that Rahmatullah was ever held to be in possession. Moreover according to the case of respondent No. 7 himself Rahmatullah had gifted this property in 1937. It further shows that when the application of Manoj Kumar was given and when the S.D.M. conducted enquiry and gave report, Nawab Rahmatullah was not in possession. In the circumstances, the District Magistrate could not have permitted Manoj Kumar to make construction in this disputed land and further could not have directed to make P.A.C. available at his request. It further shows that when the application of Manoj Kumar was given and when the S.D.M. conducted enquiry and gave report, Nawab Rahmatullah was not in possession. In the circumstances, the District Magistrate could not have permitted Manoj Kumar to make construction in this disputed land and further could not have directed to make P.A.C. available at his request. Even if for arguments sake, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that Nawab Rahmatullah is the owner of the disputed plot as his name continues to be recorded in the revenue records is accepted, he not being in possession, could not have authorised Manoj Kumar through power of attorney to make constructions in the disputed plot, unless the petitioner is, dispossessed in due process of law. Respondent No. 7 could not have made any construction and the District Magistrate erred in allowing him to make construction. Admittedly the civil suit of the year 1972 was pending at the time the impugned orders were passed. Earlier the parties had litigation under Section 145, Cr.P.C. even up to the stage of this Court and the same were either dropped or were consigned as the civil suit was pending between the parties. If the District Magistrate was bona fidely interested in preserving the peace, law and order, he should have taken legal action in the matter but he circumvented the legal procedure and followed short cut under the garb of passing administrative order. In any case. S.D.M. or District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title and to pass the impugned order on that basis. 15. Rahmatullah, respondent No. 6, had failed to take back the possession but the District Magistrate, by passing the impugned order, paved the way for illegal dispossession of the petitioner. The circumstances and the manner in which order has been passed support the contention of the petitioner, that the District Magistrate acted under the influence of the respondent No. 8. 16. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7 has argued that this writ petition is not maintainable. But he could not show as to how this petition is not maintainable. He also could not suggest as to what alternative forum the petitioner had to challenge the illegal order. Under writ jurisdiction illegal administrative orders can certainly be quashed. 16. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7 has argued that this writ petition is not maintainable. But he could not show as to how this petition is not maintainable. He also could not suggest as to what alternative forum the petitioner had to challenge the illegal order. Under writ jurisdiction illegal administrative orders can certainly be quashed. In the circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the learned District Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impunged order and the same is liable to be quashed. We are further of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, respondent No. 7 is liable to restore status quo ante and to pay costs to the petitioner. 17. The writ petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 9.1.2004 is hereby quashed. However it shall be open for the District Magistrate, Aligarh to take legal action in case, he is required to maintain law and order with respect to the disputed property. The parties shall also be at liberty to take suitable legal action as may be permissible to them in respect of the property in dispute. The respondent No. 7 shall be at liberty to remove his constructions if any, within 15 days. Failing it, the petitioner shall be entitled to remove the same. 18. The respondent No. 7 shall pay Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees ) as costs to the petitioner within 21 days. He shall pay this amount through bank draft and shall deposit the same in the office of the District Magistrate, Aligarh, who in turn shall deliver the same to the petitioner. In case the cost is not paid in time, it shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and the District Magistrate, Aligarh shall take necessary steps for the same. Petition Allowed. ———