Krishna Murari, J.@mdashWe have heard Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. This writ petition has been filed seeking following main relief:
"i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the official respondents to perform their statutory duty and thwart criminal activities of respondent No. 8, 9 and 10 calculated to some how dispossess the poor petitioners from their settled possession of property in question, detailed in paragraph No. 4 subsisting since before enforcement of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the District Magistrate, Mirzapur to decide representation of petitioners dated 23.6.2015 (Annexure-14) and 24.6.2015 (Annexure No. 15) within a time bound programme and by a speaking order.
iii. To issue ad interim mandamus, commanding the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 to take preventive action and restrain respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10, not to interfere in the settled actual peaceful possession of petitioners in respect of the property mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of this petition.
iv. To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and property in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, so as to meet the ends of justice."
2. The relief is being sought in the background of the facts that private respondents No. 8 to 10 are interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the plots in dispute and are bent upon to dispossess the petitioners with the help and aid of Sri Bail Lal Kol, local MLA. It is relevant to point out at this stage that the allegations have been made of exercising political influence by Bhai Lal Kol, the alleged local MLA but he has not been impleaded in the writ petition.
3. Pleadings further go to show that private respondents 8 to 10 filed a declaratory suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act before the Sub Divisional Officer, Lalganj, district Mirzapur, which was decreed vide judgment and order dated 10.4.2013. Application made by the petitioners for recall of the order was dismissed vide order dated 31.1.2014. Against which, the petitioners preferred an application before the Commissioner of the Division, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 18.4.2014. Respondents 8 to 10 filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue wherein initially an order of status-quo was passed on 16.11.2013. However, subsequently on publication of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the proceedings of the Second Appeal alongwith suit was abated by the Board of Revenue under Section 5 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act vide order dated 19.6.2015. Thus it was left open to the parties to agitate their rights before the consolidation Courts. It is nowhere disclosed in the writ petition as to whether any proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was initiated by either of the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that various applications were made before the District Magistrate, and Sub Divisional Magistrate in June, 2015 alleging that private respondents are interfering in their possession and trying to dispossess them forcibly, as such, the Station House Officer of the concerned police station be directed to take appropriate steps in the matter. A perusal of the application, which has been filed as annex-ure-11 to the writ petition, goes to show that it was moved before the concerned authorities on ''Tehsil Diwas'' and ''Samadhan Diwas''.
5. Thus, in effect, the petitioners are actually aggrieved with alleged illegal action of respondents 8 to 10 of forcibly trying to dispossess them from over the land in dispute. Despite our repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any provision of any Statute, which empowers the District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass orders on the administrative side in such dispute. In the absence of Statutory provision casting a duty upon the respondents authorities to consider and decide the applications made by the petitioners, no mandamus, as claimed, is liable to be issued. The law in this regard is well-settled that no mandamus can be issued commanding the authority unless a Statutory duty has been cast upon him by provisions of some Statutes and the authority has failed to discharge such a duty.
6. In such view of the matter, the relief of mandamus claimed by the petitioners to command the authorities to perform their statutory duty and to thwart the criminal activities of respondents 8, 9 and 10 to some how dispossess the petitioners from their settled possession of property in question is not liable to be granted.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any such provisions of law that the District Magistrate acting on an administrative side is entitled to entertain an application/representation in respect of such a dispute and pass order thereon.
8. Thus, the relief No. (ii) claimed in the writ petition to command the District Magistrate, Mirzapur to decide representation also cannot be granted because no mandamus can be issued to an authority to decide an unsolicited and non statutory representation.
9. Apart from above, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by any of the alleged illegal activities of the private respondents 8 to 10 dispossessing them from the land in dispute, it is always open to them to avail the common law remedy if they are so advised. Writ petition against private respondent on these allegations being a civil dispute between private parties is not liable to be entertained merely by impleading the State authorities and seeking a direction to command them to decide a non statutory unsolicited representation raising disputed question of facts, which require adjudication on the basis of evidence. Common Law remedy is available to the petitioners which can be availed by them if so advised.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hondas (Dead) and others v. Collector, Mahoba and others, 1999 All CJ 725 ,
11. In the case of Haridas (Dead) (supra), the petitioners approached this Court alleging that a part of the land in dispute was subject-matter of land acquisition proceedings but the State authorities have illegally taken over possession of the entire plot and thus the ratio of the said decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the petition was directed against State action.
12. Similar is the situation in the case of Mukesh Singh (Supra). The Division Bench of this Court in the said case held that there must be a statutory law before anybody''s property can be taken and such statutory law or any notification issued thereunder must satisfy the test of reasonability and should be non-arbitrary. Mukesh Singh (Supra) was a case against Banaras State Bank Limited where depositor was not permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by him in the bank in view of the Government Notification providing that maximum, withdrawal is only to the extent of Rs. 2500/- from the bank. Thus the writ petition was also directed against the State and not against private respondents. Hence, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It may also be pointed out at this stage that in the garb of seeking mandamus to command the respondents authorities to decide non statutory and unsolicited representation making allegation against a private respondent, writ petition will not liable to be entertained because in effect the dispute is between two private parties for which a common law remedy is available.
13. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the decisions in the case of
14. The case of Krishna Ram Mahele (Supra) was a case arising out of suit filed on the allegations that defendants had unlawfully obtained possession of the business and premises from where it was conducted. It was in the said facts, the Apex Court observed that where a person is in settled possession of properly, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law.
15. The same view was expressed by Hon''ble Apex Court in Rome Gowda (Supra), which was also a case arising out of suit filed by the plaintiff alleging his title as also his possession over the disputed piece of land.
16. The aforesaid two cases have no application to the present case where the petitioners instead of approaching the competent Court for adjudication of their rights and protection of possession have directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the administrative authorities to grant an injunction and to save their possession for which they have no authority and power as the same is vested in a Court of law under common civil law.
17. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ratio of the decision in State of U.P. (Supra) is also absolutely misfounded inasmuch as in the said case the land was taken away by the State authority forcibly without following process of law and without paying any compensation. It was in the said facts, the Hon''ble Apex Court while dismissing the appeal against the judgment of the High Court held that no person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law as provided under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
18. There are no allegation in the writ petition in respect of any alleged action on the part of State. Allegations are regarding inaction on the part of State authorities on various representations made by the petitioners. As already observed above, unless a statutory duty is cast upon the authority with a corresponding right to the petitioner, no mandamus can be issued.
19. In so far as mandamus sought against police authorities impleaded in the writ petition is concerned, according to the own pleadings of the petitioners as contained in paragraph 10-A of the writ petition, an F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioners against respondents 8, 9, 10 and others under Section 406 and 427 I.P.C. registered as case crime No. 616 of 2014, the investigation has been completed and a charge-sheet has been filed. We have no reason to believe that the said proceedings shall not be brought to a logical end in accordance with law. Thus the petitioners cannot have grievance against the police authorities.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, the relief prayed for in the writ petition is not liable to be granted.
21. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioners to seek their remedy before appropriate forum as may be available in law and if so advised.
