Allahabad High Court
NAEEM AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Collector lacks jurisdiction to interfere in a private land dispute that is already pending before a civil court.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash an order dated 17 May 2025 in which the District Collector entertained an application by a private tenure holder concerning possession of land that was already the subject of a civil suit. The petitioners argued that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to entertain such an application and that the dispute should be resolved either by contesting the suit, filing a separate partition suit, or seeking demarcation under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The respondents contended that no order had been passed by the Collector but acknowledged the pending civil suit. The Court held that the Collector cannot interfere in a private land dispute that is already before a civil court and directed the Collector not to intervene. The petition was dismissed, with the parties directed to pursue remedies in the pending suit or through demarcation under the Revenue Code.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Collector has jurisdiction to entertain an application concerning possession of land while a civil suit on the same matter is pending.
- Whether the Collector's action violates the principle that civil disputes should be resolved by the appropriate civil court.
- Whether the parties should seek relief under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 instead of approaching the Collector.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 24
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- administrative law
- land dispute
- civil suit
- Section 24
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Article 226
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37998 of 2025
Naeem And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohit Verma, Sachida Nand Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajay Yadav, C.S.C., Inteshwar Nath
Singh
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Rajkumar Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Yadav,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17th May, 2025 on
the ground that the Collector does not have any jurisdiction or otherwise
authority vested in law to get an application examined by the private
tenure holder regarding possession and dispossession or any threat of
dispossession once the parties are already litigating the matter in a civil
suit in respect of the same property.
3. It is though sought to be contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that only application has been entertained and direction has been issued
for examination but according to him, the proper course would have been
either to contest the suit or to file separate suit for partition or otherwise to
seek settlement of boundaries by way of demarcation under Section 24 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 but in no case, the District Magistrate acted as
a Collector in the district would have entertained the application of the
nature in which he has entertained.
4. Upon a pointed query being made Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel submits that there appears to be some dispute
WRIC No. 37998 of 2025
2
regarding possession of the petitioner of an area of land more than what
was sold out to him by the original tenure holder. However, he does not
dispute that the matter once pending in a civil suit before the court of
competent jurisdiction, the parties should pursued that matter instead of
approaching this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submitted that Collector
has yet not passed any order, however, he does not dispute that civil suit
is going on between the parties.
6. In such above view of the matter, we dispose of this petition with a
direction to the District Magistrate/ Collector, Azamgarh not to interfere
in the matter of dispute between the two private parties qua land in
question.
7. It is open for the parties to seek appropriate remedy in a pending suit or
otherwise get their boundaries demarcated under Section 24 of U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006.
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
March 18, 2026
Atmesh
Digitally signed by :-
ATMESH KESARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…