Allahabad High Court Condemns Prayagraj District Administration for Unlawful Land Seizure and Intervention

The Allahabad High Court has criticised the Prayagraj district administration for unlawfully seizing private land. The court ordered the district magistrate to return the property to its rightful owner, as it was before July 22, 2024. This decision came after a writ petition by Arun Prakash Shukla. Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal condemned the administration's actions, stating they lacked authority in civil property disputes.

The court emphasised that administrative roles are limited to maintaining law and order under sections 107 and 116 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). They cannot decide on possession or title issues. Civil disputes over property must be resolved by the judiciary, not through administrative intervention. The petitioner sought protection for his property in Mauja Katra Dayaram, Soraon, Prayagraj.

Legal Dispute Over Property

The property was bought from Ram Naresh Mishra, whose heirs contested the sale, claiming incapacity of the vendor. This challenge was dismissed by a trial court in 2013, confirming the petitioner's possession. However, Rama Kant claimed forcible dispossession and approached the district administration. The administration intervened illegally, conducted an inquiry, and restored possession to Rama Kant based on revenue records.

This action led to the eviction of the petitioner with police assistance. The petitioner's counsel argued that the district administration acted unlawfully without any court order backing such intervention. On the other hand, the opposite party argued that administrative action was necessary for restoring possession.

Court's Rejection of Administrative Actions

The court rejected this argument, highlighting that administrative bodies have jurisdictional limits. "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," stated the court.

The court directed the district magistrate to cease unauthorised interference and restore possession to the petitioner as it was before July 22, 2024. Additionally, they instructed that adequate police protection be provided to ensure a peaceful restoration process.