# Harpal and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 122
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-10-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1892 of 2005
- **Bench:** S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harpal-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40398
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
alternative
remedy-
Petitioner
being
recorded tenure holder- on appeal filed
by Gaon Sabha as per direction of S.O.C.
The C.O. Directed to expunged the name
without affording any opportunity of
hearing- admittedly the revision under
section 48 of the Act as well as in civil
suit- interim order continuing in favour
of petitioner-writ petition directly cannot
be entertained where the statutory
alternative
remedy
provided-on
the
pertext
the
respondents
with
the
collusion
of
the
local
authorities
harassing the petitioner.

Held: Para 5 & 8

Needless to say that question of right
and ownership in respect to the land in
dispute cannot be directly adjudicated
and decided by this Court and the proper
forum is the consolidation courts where
matter is already pending. Thus as
petitioners have already availed the
alternative remedy as available to them
they cannot claim that this Court should
undertake
the
job
of
trial
court,
appellate court and the revisional court
to examine the facts and the evidence
and to decide the question of title
straightaway.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is
clear that this is not the case where
petitioners have no remedy against the
order
of
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
rather
they
having
statutory,
alternative
remedy
has
already availed the same it is also not
the case where the lower courts have
not granted interim protection to the
petitioners
as
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation as well as the civil court
has granted full interim protection to the
petitioners in respect of their rights. On
these facts, this Court is not satisfied
that this is a case to entertain the writ
petition and by accepting the rights and
title of the petitioners grant relief of
injunction
against
the
respondents.
Claim of the petitioners for adjudication
will lead to taking of the evidence and
recording of the findings on the question
of fact for which this is not the stage to
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Harpal and another V. State of U.P. and others
123
go into the merits in the petitioners
claim.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC 2120
1995 ALJ 1319

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
122
had right to sponsor the case of all the
members before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner under the provisions of the
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the
rules and regulations framed therein. The
judgment of the apex Court in Akhil
Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari (Railway)
Sangh's case (supra) do support the
contention of counsel for the petitioner
that writ petition filed by petitioner-union
is fully maintainable.

26. In result, the order of the Taxing
Officer dated 12th October, 2004 and the
report of the Stamp Reporter dated 5th
October, 2004 are quashed. The writ
petition filed by the petitioner is held
maintainable on payment of one set of
Court fee.

The
application
stands
allowed
accordingly.

Application allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 28.1.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1892 of 2005

Harpal and another

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ram Niwas Singh
Sri V.K.S. Chandel

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
alternative
remedy-
Petitioner
being
recorded tenure holder- on appeal filed
by Gaon Sabha as per direction of S.O.C.
The C.O. Directed to expunged the name
without affording any opportunity of
hearing- admittedly the revision under
section 48 of the Act as well as in civil
suit- interim order continuing in favour
of petitioner-writ petition directly cannot
be entertained where the statutory
alternative
remedy
provided-on
the
pertext
the
respondents
with
the
collusion
of
the
local
authorities
harassing the petitioner.

Held: Para 5 & 8

Needless to say that question of right
and ownership in respect to the land in
dispute cannot be directly adjudicated
and decided by this Court and the proper
forum is the consolidation courts where
matter is already pending. Thus as
petitioners have already availed the
alternative remedy as available to them
they cannot claim that this Court should
undertake
the
job
of
trial
court,
appellate court and the revisional court
to examine the facts and the evidence
and to decide the question of title
straightaway.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is
clear that this is not the case where
petitioners have no remedy against the
order
of
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
rather
they
having
statutory,
alternative
remedy
has
already availed the same it is also not
the case where the lower courts have
not granted interim protection to the
petitioners
as
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation as well as the civil court
has granted full interim protection to the
petitioners in respect of their rights. On
these facts, this Court is not satisfied
that this is a case to entertain the writ
petition and by accepting the rights and
title of the petitioners grant relief of
injunction
against
the
respondents.
Claim of the petitioners for adjudication
will lead to taking of the evidence and
recording of the findings on the question
of fact for which this is not the stage to
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Harpal and another V. State of U.P. and others
123
go into the merits in the petitioners
claim.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC 2120
1995 ALJ 1319

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned State counsel.

2. Prayer in this petition is for
issuance of the writ in the nature of
mandamus or prohibition restraining the
respondents from evicting the petitioner
from the disputed land and pond except in
accordance with law. There is further
prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents
from interfering in the possession of the
petitioners over the land in dispute. By
moving amendment application prayer for
quashing the order of the settlement
officer consolidation dated 11.4.2001 has
been made and another prayer has also
been added that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation be directed to dispose of
the pending revision against the order of
the Settlement Officer Consolidation
dated 11.4.2001 within a reasonable time.

Argument of the learned counsel for
the petitioners can be summarised.

3. Dispute is in respect to plot no.
843 and 837 situated in village Palri
Pargana Shikarpur district Muzaffarnagar.
Claim of the petitioner is that name of
their predecessor was recorded for a long
time and admittedly when the present
consolidation proceedings started name of
petitioners'
father
was
recorded
as
Assami. It is claimed that several
objections came before the Consolidation
Officer in respect of the entry over the
land in dispute including one by the
petitioner's
father
besides
Ramesh
Chandra and Gaon Sabha and they are
pending. In the meantime matter went to
the Settlement Officer Consolidation at
the instance of the Gaon Sabha in which it
is said that the order was passed by the
Settlement Officer Consolidation after
calling report from the Consolidation
Officer and by order dated 11.4.2001
name of petitioners' father was directed to
be expunged. Claim is that as order
passed by the appellate authority was
without any opportunity to the petitioners'
father and without their being any order
of the Consolidation Officer, petitioners'
father filed revision along with stay
application. In the revision filed before
the Deputy Director of Consolidation an
order directing to maintain status quo
regarding the disputed plots was granted.
It has also come that petitioners' father
filed a civil suit for injunction i.e. original
suit no. 158 of 2001 in which an
injunction was granted in his favour and
his interest was protected. Inspite of the
aforesaid grievance as placed before this
Court appears to be that respondents in
collusion with each other are trying to
interfere in the petitioners possession
although the order of Settlement Officer
Consolidation dated 11.4.2001 is illegal.
Although revision is pending before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation in
which there is interim protection to the
petitioners and a civil suit is also pending
in which also there is interim stay but
petitioners submit that as the respondents
are bent upon to harass the petitioners the
writ
petition
should
be
entertained
straightaway as alternative remedy cannot
be said to be absolute bar. Submission is
that the claim of the petitioners is related
to bread and butter and, therefore, this
Court is to entertain the writ petition and
is to grant relief, as prayed. In support of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
124
the submission that writ petition can be
entertained straightaway irrespective of
alternative remedy reliance has been
placed on decision given in the case of
Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs.
Indian Coil Corporation Ltd. and
others reported in AIR 2003 SC 2120,
decision given in the case of Babu Lal
and others Vs. Collector, Varanasi and
others reported in 1995 All. C.J. 1319
and decision given in Bidi Supply Co.
Vs. Union of India and others reported
in AIR 1956 SC 479.

4. In view of the aforesaid matter
has been examined.

5. In view of the facts as has come
on record, there is no dispute about the
fact that against the order of the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
petitioner has filed revision before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation is fully
empowered to consider propriety and
illegality in any order passed by the
subordinate
authority.
The
Deputy
Director of Consolidation is conferred
with very wide powers as he can examine
any factual aspect beside the legal aspect.
There is already interim protection given
by the revisional court in favour of the
petitioners. At the same time in the suit
filed from the petitioners side petitioners
interest has been adequately protected by
grant of injunction. In view of the
aforesaid it is clear that it is not a case
where the petitioners have not approached
to the competent forum rather competent
court against the order of the Settlement
Officer Consolidation has been already
approached. Needless to say that question
of right and ownership in respect to the
land in dispute cannot be directly
adjudicated and decided by this Court and
the proper forum is the consolidation
courts where matter is already pending.
Thus as petitioners have already availed
the alternative remedy as available to
them they cannot claim that this Court
should undertake the job of trial court,
appellate court and the revisional court to
examine the facts and the evidence and to
decide the question of title straightaway.

6. In the decision given by the Apex
Court in the case of Harbans Sahnia
(supra)
against
the
cancellation
of
peteroleum dealership writ petition was
filed straaightaway and thus as the action
was against the natural justice and was
based on irrelevant and non existent facts,
it was held that writ petition was
maintainable. It is the case where
petitioners have already challenged the
order
of
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation before the Deputy Director
of Consolidation which is statutory forum
provided under Section 48 of the U.P.
C.H. Act and thus decision as referred by
the learned counsel has no application to
the facts.

7. In the decision given in the case
of Babu Lal and another (supra) referred
by the learned counsel situation was that
there was an order by the concerned
authority for demolition of the premises
and, therefore, a limited relief was granted
by this Court in respect of demolition part
and for vindicating rights and title the
petitioners were relegated to approach the
competent civil court and it was held that
this court is not proper forum for deciding
the question of ownership and possession
of the premises. It was also held in the
case of Babu Lal and another (supra) that
if the petitioners have already availed an
alternative remedy for redressal of their
grievance then writ petition is not
maintainable. The last decision in the case
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Harpal and another V. State of U.P. and others
125
of Bidi Supply Co. (supra) as referred by
the learned counsel, no decision on the
matter in issue can be said to have been
given. Reliance as placed on para 25 of
the aforesaid decision has nothing to do
with the facts of the present case.

8. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, it is clear that this is not the
case where petitioners have no remedy
against the order of the Settlement Officer
Consolidation
rather
they
having
statutory, alternative remedy has already
availed the same it is also not the case
where the lower courts have not granted
interim protection to the petitioners as
Deputy Director of Consolidation as well
as the civil court has granted full interim
protection to the petitioners in respect of
their rights. On these facts, this Court is
not satisfied that this is a case to entertain
the writ petition and by accepting the
rights and title of the petitioners grant
relief
of
injunction
against
the
respondents. Claim of the petitioners for
adjudication will lead to taking of the
evidence and recording of the findings on
the question of fact for which this is not
the stage to go into the merits in the
petitioners claim.

9. So far the grievance of the
petitioners that inspite of there being
injunction/stay granted in their favour by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation and
the civil court, respondents in collusion
with each other are creating complication
and are trying to interfere in the
petitioners possession suffice it to say that
the remedy of the petitioners is to
approach the learned Collector and the
Senior Superintendent of Police of the
district by placing before them the stay
orders which stands in their favour and it
is for them to ensure the strict compliance
of those orders. Needless to say that it is
the duty of the learned Collector and the
Senior Superintendent of Police to get the
orders of the court complied in its true
sense faithfully. It is the duty of the
administration to maintain law and order
situation and, therefore, they are bound to
take action in the light of the orders of the
court on which reliance has been placed
by the petitioners. Thus it is for the
petitioners to approach the concerned
administrative
authority
along
with
certified copy of this order, annexing the
copy of the interim orders in their favour
so that needful may be done by the higher
officials.

10. So far the prayer for a direction
to decide the revision by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation which has been
filed against the order of the settlement
officer consolidation dated 11.4.2001 is
concerned,
as
the
petitioners
are
complaining
in
respect
to
their
unwarranted harassment for which they
have come to this Court also it will be in
the ends of justice to accept that prayer.
Otherwise also any pending proceedings
before any court has to be disposed of at
earliest
unless
there
is
any
legal
impediment. Be as it may, on the facts it
will be useful to give a direction to the
concerned revisional court to decide the
pending revision if it has not already been
decided, with all expedition, without
allowing any unwarranted adjournment to
either of the parties preferably within a
period of two months from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of this order,
after giving adequate opportunity of
hearing to all the parties concerned.

11. For the analysis made above,
this Court instead of granting any relief
straightaway in this petition to quash the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
126
order
of
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation dated 11.4.2001 and to
grant
any
injunction
against
the
respondents, proposes to dispose of the
writ
petition
in
the
light
of
the
observations as made above.

For the reasons recorded above, writ
petition stands disposed of.
Petition disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7186 of 2004

Abhai Raj Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Bank of Baroda & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.N. Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.B. Singh
Sri Vijay Sinha
Sri Saumitra Singh

Constitution of India, Article 226-Service
Law-disciplinary
proceeding-and
the
Criminal proceeding for the same set of
facts-simultaneously
can
go
ondifference between the two-explainedinstant case nothing a whispers as to
how the continuance of departmental
proceeding
would
cause
prejudicepetition dismissed.

Held: Para 11

In the instant case, even though the
criminal
action
and
disciplinary
proceedings are grounded upon the
same sets of fact, in my view, there is no
provision of law empowering the court to
stay
the
departmental
proceedings
merely because criminal prosecution is
pending in the criminal court. In my
opinion,
the
purpose
of
the
two
proceedings are quite different. The
object of the departmental proceedings
is to ascertain whether the delinquent is
required to be retained in service or not.
On the other hand the object of criminal
prosecution is to find out whether the
offence in the penal statute has been
made out or not. Therefore, the area
covered by the two proceedings are not
identical.
The
object
in
both
the
proceedings are different. Whereas the
departmental proceedings are taken to
maintain the discipline and the efficiency
in the service, the criminal proceedings
are initiated to punish a person for
committing an offence violating any
public duty. The Supreme Court has
clearly stated that where the case is of a
grave nature and involves questions of
fact and law, in that event it would be
advisable for the employer to await the
decision of a criminal court. In the
present case, there is no complicated
questions of fact and law involved, nor
any evidence has been led by the
petitioner to show as to how he was
prejudiced in the continuance of the
departmental proceedings. Nothing has
been shown by the petitioner as to how
the proceedings in a criminal trial would
be prejudiced in the event the domestic
inquiry was not stayed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1960 SC 806
AIR 1965 SC-155
AIR 1969 SC-30
AIR 1988 SC-2118
2004 ILR-950

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarul Agarwala, J.)

1. The petitioner is working as a
Head Cashier in Bank of Baroda and is
posted in Tanda Shahabad Branch, in
District Rampur. It transpires that an
account holder in the bank filed a
complaint against the petitioner and two