Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹20,000 Costs Each On Lucknow DM, ADM (Judicial) For Acting Without Jurisdiction
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 each on the District Magistrate, Lucknow and Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) for registering a case under Sections 104, 105 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 without having jurisdiction to do so. The Court also observed that the petitioner had been harassed as he had to approach the High Court to defend his rights which were...
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 each on the District Magistrate, Lucknow and Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) for registering a case under Sections 104, 105 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 without having jurisdiction to do so.
The Court also observed that the petitioner had been harassed as he had to approach the High Court to defend his rights which were violated without any authority of law.
Observing that the complaint had been filed by an advocate who had no locus, Justice Pankaj Bhatia held
“The respondent No.4 as well as ADM (Judicial) and District Magistrate are saddled with the costs of Rs.20,000/- each for harassing the petitioner to come this Court, to defend his rights which have been violated without any authority of law.”
Respondent No. 4, an advocate, wrote to the petitioner regarding the land in question. He alleged that certain activities were being carried out, which ought to be stopped. It was also alleged that based on a wrong order, petitioner was carrying out construction on the property. Further, it was alleged that the property was purchased illegally by the petitioner and based on the revenue records, the advocate could prove it.
Since the petitioner ignored the letter, the advocate field a complaint before the DM under Sections 104, 105 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. DM passed an order to decide the case on merits and transmitted the case to ADM(Judicial) to decide the same. The Court noted that this order was undated.
The ADM, without recording any satisfaction in respect of prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable hardship, the petitioner was restrained from selling the land or from raising any constructions until further orders. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
The Court observed that the advocate had filed the case in personal capacity without disclosing his locus. However, the counsel for the advocate argued that the land was to vest in the State, that is why he filed the complaint before the DM.
Noting the procedure for such cases where the Lekhpal is supposed to submit a report to the SDM and then after calling upon the parties, the SDM can pass orders recording his satisfaction, the Court held
“In the present case, the District Magistrate, despite being a responsible Officer of the State has entertained the complaint directly at the instance of the Respondent No. 4 without even caring to check as to whether any jurisdiction was vested in him or not. The ADM (Judicial) before whom the proceedings were transferred without any application of mind and without recording any satisfaction, proceeded to pass an order restraining the petitioner from disposing of the land or raising any constructions. Both the said action of the District Magistrate and ADM (Judicial), clearly dehors the law and without any jurisdiction.”
The Court held that the petitioner's name was in the revenue record and was being harassed for no reason. It held that the proceedings were being carried out without following due procedure of law. Noting that the advocate had no concern with the land and had acted in an irresponsible manner, the Court held that he had filed the complaint to derail the development being carried out by the petitioner.
“In the present case, the Respondent no. 4, being an Advocate has clearly misused his knowledge and power to harass the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Lucknow has exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining and registering a case without having any jurisdiction and the ADM (Judicial) was also present in this Court, has acted without jurisdiction and without any application of mind in passing an order which has resulted into hardship to the petitioner.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with the aforesaid costs.
Case Title: Niwas Colonisers Pvt. Ltd., Lko. Thru. Director Brijender Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohit Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohammad Aslam Khan, Pankaj Shukla