The Allahabad High Court examined a dispute concerning alleged encroachment. The petitioner claimed to be the absolute owner of the property and relied upon a registered sale deed. He alleged that persons had occupied the land without authority and sought protection of his possession.He approached the District Magistrate under a government order concerning Anti Land Grabbing Committees. The allegation of the petitioner was supported by a registered document and additional evidence. The respondents disputed his claim and referred to the property in question.The Court examined the facts and circumstances of the case. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff were considered. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that action was necessary. Having carefully considered the material, the Court held that a reasonable apprehension of delay could not justify exercise of judicial power by an administrative authority. The short point for consideration was whether such authority could determine disputed civil rights.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court examined the provisions of section and the statutory provisions governing the committee, read with section to the scheme. It held that an executive order could not confer judicial powers which were not granted by law.The Court observed that inherent powers could not be transferred to an administrative body. A judicial function could not be performed by an executive committee, and such authority could be exercised only by a judicial officer within jurisdiction. The committee could not assume the functions of a subordinate court.The dispute concerned the right, title or interest of the parties. It was not a matter of public nuisance or public service commission jurisdiction. Administrative action could not become a substitute for quasi-judicial proceedings before the competent forum.The Court considered an interim order and temporary injunction. Such relief could be sought before the civil court, but an administrative authority could not grant it without jurisdiction. The Court also considered rebuttable evidence and weight of evidence.The respondents relied upon a written statement, but it could not confer jurisdiction. The right of appeal was considered. The Court noted that strict proof was necessary and referred to a suit for possession and specific relief.In the ultimate analysis, the Court found that there is nothing on record to establish that the committee had been vested with judicial powers. The authority must remain within the cognizance conferred by law and follow the principle which is laid down by the statutory framework. It also considered adverse possession and a direction to show cause why action should not be taken.The Court stated that a speaking order must remain within jurisdiction and considered the valuation of the suit. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition was disposed of. The Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus and left the petitioner free to approach the civil court. The well established principle that executive authorities must act within legal limits was reaffirmed for the reasons stated above. (498) Submit