Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 232 (ALL)

Jagmal Singh v. State of U. P.

2019-01-29

ABHINAVA UPADHYA, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the Tehsildar, Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar. 3. The allegation of the petitioner is that there was a road in front of his house. The private respondent nos. 4 to 7 entered into a dispute with the petitioner and in this regard an FIR was also lodged against the private respondents. However, just to harass the petitioner they made a complaint to the Tehsildar that the petitioner is constructing a road on the land that does not belong to the petitioner and the Tehsildar issued a direction to S.H.O. Kairana to see that no such road is constructed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such an order cannot be passed by an executive authority at the hands of the private respondents. If private respondents have any grievance against the petitioner, they ought to have approached the court of civil jurisdiction for adjudication of their grievance. The Tehsildar had no power to issue a direction to S.H.O. concerned to interfere with the rights of the petitioner over the land in dispute. In this case, this order was stayed by this Court by order dated 22.02.2011. The counter affidavit of private respondents is on record but State has not filed a counter affidavit. Although there is a counter affidavit to the amendment application. 5. Be that as it may, it does appear that the dispute raised in this writ petition appears to be of civil in nature which has also been admitted by the State in their counter affidavit to the amendment application. We are of the view that the Tehsildar had absolutely no jurisdiction to issue a direction to the S.H.O. to interfere in any manner with the rights of the petitioners specially at the hands of the private respondents. In this view of the matter, the order dated 07.01.2011 cannot be sustained and it is hereby quashed. The writ petition to the aforesaid extent is allowed. 6. It is made clear that this court has not adjudicated upon the rights and title of the petitioner over the land in question.