Court imposes costs on District Magistrate, ADM, and Advocate for misuse of power and harassment.
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed proceedings initiated against Niwas Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. by the District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Lucknow, citing lack of jurisdiction and procedural impropriety. The case involved allegations of illegal land transactions under Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Pankaj Bhatia ruled that the proceedings should have been initiated before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, as mandated by Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, rather than the District Magistrate or ADM. The Court declared all actions taken by these authorities as void and quashed the interim order that had restrained Niwas Colonisers from selling or constructing on the disputed land.
The case was filed by an advocate, Respondent No. 4, who had no direct interest in the property but served a legal notice threatening action against Niwas Colonisers. The Court observed that the advocate's actions constituted harassment and misuse of legal process. Consequently, the Court imposed a personal cost of Rs. 20,000 each on the District Magistrate, ADM, and the advocate involved, instructing that these costs not be drawn from state funds.
The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to jurisdictional mandates, highlighting that such procedural lapses not only cause undue hardship to parties involved but also constitute a misuse of authority. The Court sternly noted the irresponsible conduct of the District Magistrate and ADM, which resulted in unwarranted legal battles for the petitioner.
The ruling further stipulates that the costs must be paid from personal accounts within specified timeframes, with provisions for recovery as arrears of land revenue in case of non-compliance. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to uphold legal sanctity and prevent harassment through procedural misuse.
Bottom line:-
Proceedings initiated under Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 must strictly adhere to the jurisdictional mandates of Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. District Magistrates and ADMs cannot entertain such cases or pass orders without jurisdiction, and actions taken in violation of these rules are liable to be quashed.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 104, 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Rule 103 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016
Niwas Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2905655
