Allahabad HC Disapproves Of Govt Admin's Act Of Demolishing Lawyer's House In 'Undue Haste', Filing FIRs Against Bar Members

"Lodging of the FIRs, undertaking demolitions and even making the complaint to the Bar Council of U.P. against the President and formal office bearers and members of the petitioner-Bar Association…in a span of less than a week shows not only undue haste on the part of the District Administration but such actions also demonstrate lack of good faith on the part of the authorities of District Administration," the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Saurabh Srivastava remarked.

Significantly, the Court also observed that restraint and adherence to rule of law is the hallmark of efficient and judicious administration and any deviation from such attributes by the District Administration is bound to raise concerns.

Further, the Court asked the District Administration, the officers and the employees associated with it, to adhere to the law so as to instil a sense of justice among one and all.

The case in brief

The Court was essentially hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by the District Bar Association, Amethi through its General Secretary, Uma Shankar making various allegations of accesses against the members of the Bar Association by the District Administration, Administration of the Nagar Palika Parishad and Police Administration, Gauriganj, Amethi.

The petitioner association alleged that the large-scale crackdown on Members of the Bar by the District Administration was due to the reason that they were raising their voices for the establishment of a civil court in the district.

Further, in the PIL Plea, the stress was laid on the act of the local authorities to demolish the house owned by Uma Shankar Mishra (General Secretary of the District Bar Association, Amethi) by using heavy machinery.

Essentially, the property in question (over which a house was built and was later on demolished) was given to Mishra in exchange for his land by means of an order passed on May 16, 2015.

The exchange took place statutorily under section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [UPZA & LR Act], that too, under the order passed by the court.

However, when one Umesh Pratap Singh wrote to the Sub Divisional Officer, Gauriganj, stating that the exchange of land was wrongly made, the officer concerned asked the Tehsildar, Gauriganj to examine and submit his report.

Thereafter, by means of an order passed on November 16, 2022, the SDM cancelled the exchange order, and allegedly, immediately an entry was made in the khatauni, and thereafter, the house was demolished.

Further, the Court was also informed by the petitioner that FIRs were also lodged by the district administration against the Senior Vice President and the Ex-President of the petitioner-Bar Association.

The petitioner claimed that the filing of FIRs was nothing but a clear manifestation of the vengeance with which the District Administration has been acting against the members of the petitioner-Bar Association.

The writ petition also contained certain other allegations concerning the demolition of the structures/buildings of the Members of the Bar Association. It was also alleged that the administration was acting against the lawyers with vengeance and in order to "teach a lesson" them a lesson.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court refrained from making any comment on the order of the SDM on November 16 cancelling the exchange order, making an entry in the khatauni, and demolishing the house of the General Secretary of the District Bar Association, Amethi as the same was under challenge before the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner in judicial proceedings.

However, the Court prima facie observed that before passing the order, the General Secretary of the Bar Association was not put to proper and adequate notice.

Further, the Court did note that the events and circumstances as mentioned in the PIL plea made it clear that everything complained of against the District Administration was not proper.

"…we may refer to the First Information Report lodged at case crime No.0432 of 2022 on 19.11.2022 which accuses the General Secretary of the Bar Association of an 14 offence under section 2/3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The order of exchange passed in favour of the General Secretary of the petitioner-Bar Association on 16.05.2015 was cancelled on 16.11.2022 and within three days, the said F.I.R. has been lodged. As to how within three days of the passing of the order on 16.11.2022 the accused in the said F.I.R. can be said to have committed the said offence for the reason that he has been in possession, on the basis of judicial order passed seven years ago on 16.05.2015, over the land in question, is something to be pondered about. The order of exchange passed on 16.05.2015 has been intact till it was cancelled on 16.11.2022. As to how use of such exchanged land from 16.05.2015 till 16.11.2022 can be said to have caused damage to public property is again an issue which raises question mark on the District Administration," the Court remarked as it observed that the District Administration had been deficient and wanting so far as following the legal procedure was concerned.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court directed that the proceedings initiated against the order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer before the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner concerned shall be expedited and conducted appropriately and a just and proper order shall be passed.

The Court also requested the District Magistrate, Amethi and the members/representatives of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to sit across the table and redress the genuine grievances of the members of the petitioner-Bar Association.

Further, the Court also expressed a hope that the members of the petitioner-Bar Association shall not be unnecessarily harassed and that the members of the petitioner-Bar Association including its present and formal office bearers shall conduct themselves properly and in a manner which is expected of the lawyers' community.