Abuse of Process and Illegal Dispossession: Allahabad HC Orders Restoration of Possession, Slams Trial Court: Writ C No. 28263 of 2025 - 2026-01-05

Judicial Overreach: Allahabad HC Slams Illegal Eviction of Woman by Court Official

In a stinging rebuke to both the judicial and administrative machinery of Siddharth Nagar, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the immediate restoration of an ancestral home to a petitioner who was forcibly evicted alongside her three minor children. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Arun Kumar , described the entire episode as a "gross abuse of the process of law" orchestrated by an employee of the district judiciary.

The Anatomy of an Illegal Eviction

The petitioner, Smt. Soni, had been residing in her joint ancestral house when a court employee—Respondent No. 8, a Peshkar—manipulated a questionable sale deed for an undivided portion of the property. Despite the petitioner’s long-standing occupancy and the absence of any legal partition, Respondent No. 8 managed to obtain an ex parte injunction from a local civil court.

Even more alarming, administrative authorities—including the Tehsildar and police personnel—bypassed statutory mandates to form a "joint team" that forcibly evicted the mother and her children, discarding her belongings and locking her out of the home she had occupied for years.

Conflicting Arguments

The Petitioner’s Stance : The petitioner argued that she was denied the most basic principles of natural justice. She asserted that she was not served with any summons for the original suit and that the administrative intervention used to execute the ex parte injunction was completely without jurisdiction.

The Respondent’s Stance : Respondent No. 8 claimed his actions were lawful, alleging he was the rightful owner of a portion of the house via a sale deed. He justified the administrative intervention by claiming it was a mere enforcement of the trial court's "status quo" orders, alleging the petitioner had repeatedly broken his locks.

A Breakdown of Judicial Duty

The High Court’s analysis revealed a systemic failure. The trial judge, having granted an ex parte injunction without observing the mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( CPC ), further erred by entertaining an application under Section 151 CPC for "restoration of possession" on a date not even fixed for the matter.

The Court noted: > "The undue haste with which the application was entertained and granted gives rise to a serious doubt regarding the propriety of the exercise undertaken by the trial court... The court was required to issue notice of the said application to the defendants."

Key Observations

• On Jurisdictional Error: "The administrative authorities had no power or jurisdiction to constitute any joint team for the purpose of delivering possession of the property to respondent No.8."
• On the Process of Law: "The tearing hurry in which the matter has proceeded raises serious doubt about the bona fides of orders passed by the trial court and the action taken by the Administrative Authorities."
• On Judicial Propriety: "This court is constrained to observe that the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, leaves it unclear as to whether such a course was adopted out of ignorance of law or for reasons extraneous thereto."

The Final Verdict: Restoration and Accountability

In its final order, the High Court directed that the property must be returned to the petitioner within 48 hours. Furthermore, the Court: 1. Imposed a Cost: A sum of ₹1,00,000 has been levied against Respondent No. 8 as compensation for the trauma inflicted upon the petitioner and her children. 2. Recommended Discipline: The Chief Justice has been moved to initiate a disciplinary inquiry into the conduct of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) who facilitated the illegal dispossession. 3. Strict Enforcement: The Court mandated that should Respondent No. 8 fail to pay the costs, the authorities are to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.

This ruling stands as a stern warning against the "colourable exercise of power" by public servants, reaffirming that the law exists to protect the vulnerable, not to be weaponized by those within the system to bypass the very procedures they are sworn to uphold.