Akbar Ali vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Girish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

With the consent of parties'' counsel, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in the controversy involving the private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 6, the respondent No. 3-Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad is interfering with the matter on his own without any authority of law. Vide impugned order dated 29th of March, 2011, he has issued direction for stoppage of construction work over the land in question.

It is settled proposition of law that State/State''s Authority have no right to interfere with the peaceful possession over the property except in accordance to law. The Tehsildar or the other Revenue Authorities may not interfere, unless they are directed to do so by the competent Court or competent authority in accordance to law. In absence of any order passed on the judicial side or on the quasi judicial side, the respondent No. 3-Tehsildar does not have any right to interfere with the peaceful possession over the property in question.

Admittedly a partition suit is pending.

For any grievance, it is always open for the parties to approach the competent authority/forum and seek appropriate order to safeguard their interest. The Tehsildar or other Revenue Authorities lacks jurisdiction to interfere on their own to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner.

We dispose of the writ petition finally with liberty to the parties to approach the appropriate forum ventilating their grievance in accordance to law. However, the Tehsildar and other Revenue Authorities may not interfere in the matter except in accordance to law.

Any construction raised by the petitioner may be impugned before the appropriate forum.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of finally.