India News | HC Criticises Prayagraj District Administration for Unlawful Land Seizure
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. The Allahabad High Court has slammed the Prayagraj district administration for its unlawful land seizure and intervention in a private property.
Prayagraj (UP), Feb 18 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has slammed the Prayagraj district administration for its unlawful land seizure and intervention in a private property.
The court has directed the district magistrate to restore the possession of a disputed property to its legal owner as it stood before administrative intervention on July 22, 2024.
Also Read | Prakriti Lamsal Suicide: KIIT Staff Jayanti Nath Issues Apology for Her Remark on Nepal's GDP (Watch Video).
The order was passed while disposing of a writ petition filed by one Arun Prakash Shukla. A bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal strongly disapproved of the district administration's actions, emphasising that it lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate civil disputes over immovable properties.
The court noted that the administration's role is confined to maintaining law and order under sections 107 and 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and it cannot extend to deciding questions of possession or title. The court said civil disputes over possession and title must be resolved by the judiciary and not by administrative interventions.
The petitioner had approached the high court seeking protection to his possession over the 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.
The opposite party, Rama Kant, approached the district administration claiming forcible dispossession. Acting on the claim, the administration illegally intervened, conducted an inquiry and restored the possession of the property to Rama Kant, relying on revenue records. This action, carried out with police assistance, effectively evicted the petitioner from the property.
The petitioner's counsel 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, the opposite party contended that administrative action was necessary to restore possession.
The court, however, rejected this argument, highlighting the jurisdictional limits of administrative bodies.
Rejecting the respondent's claim, the court said, "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."
The court directed the district magistrate to withdraw the unauthorised 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 above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)