Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. A. SHARMA, B. S. CHAUHAN
WAF ALALAULAD - Appellant
Versus
M/s.SUNDARDAS DAULATRAM AND SONS - Respondents
S. A. 954 Of 199
Decided On : 03/13/1996
PROPERTY GRABBING - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL - PUBLIC DUTY - RIGHT TO PROPERTY - ARTICLE 21 - ARTICLE 226 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, SECTION 6 - GOVERNMENT'S DUTY TO PROTECT CITIZENS - NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION V. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH - KRISHNA RAM MAHALE V. MRS. SHOBHA VENKAT RAO - QAMARUDDIN V. RASUL BAKSH - GANGA SARAN V. CIVIL JUDGE - SHRI ANADI MUKTA SADGURU SHREE MUKTAJEE VANDASJISWAMI SUVRAJAYANTI MAHOTSAV SRTIARAK TRUST V. V. R. RUDANI - CHARAN LAL SAHU V. UNION OF INDIA - JAI PRAKASH VASHISHT V. ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION V. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH -
Fact of the Case:
The owner of a property leased it to the tenants for 45 years with a renewal option for 15 more years. After the lease expired, the owner took possession of the property, prompting the tenants to file a writ petition seeking restoration of possession, protection from local mafia, and renewal of their license. The court issued an interim mandamus directing the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter and restore possession to the tenants if the allegations were found to be true.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tenants had been unlawfully dispossessed from the property and that the owner had no right to take possession without following due process of law. The court further held that the tenants had a right to remain in possession of the property until they were evicted through a court order. However, the court also found that the tenants had voluntarily handed over possession of the property to the owner's manager, and that there was no evidence of property grabbing by the owner.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition challenging the forcible grabbing of property by unlawful means. 2. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to a private individual to enforce contractual or legal obligations. 3. Whether the tenants have an alternative remedy of suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 4. Whether the tenants have any legal right to remain in possession of the property after the expiry of the lease.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition challenging the forcible grabbing of property by unlawful means, as it is the duty of the government to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. 2. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a private individual to enforce contractual or legal obligations, unless the individual is under a statutory duty to perform a public duty. 3. The tenants have an alternative remedy of suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to recover possession of the property, but this does not preclude them from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases of unlawful dispossession. 4. The tenants have a legal right to remain in possession of the property until they are evicted through a court order, even after the expiry of the lease.
Final Decision: The court allowed the owner's special appeal and set aside the impugned order of the lower court. The court also dismissed the tenants' writ petition, but granted them liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate relief.
( 1 ) ON 26/05/1950, Waqf Alalaulad through its Mutwalli (hereinafter referred to as the owner) executed a lease deed of its property (herein after referred to as the property) in favour of Sri Om Prakash Gupta for the purposes of running a cinema house. The said lease was for a period of 45 years with effect from 1-1-1950 with a stipulation for its renewal for a further period of 15 years. Period of the lease expired on 31-12-1994. The owner took possession of the property after mid-night of 3 1/12/1994. Being aggrieved, M/s. Sundardas Daulatram and sons and M/s. Imperial Theatres (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) filed a writ petition on 6/03/1995 before this Court for the following reliefs :" (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to force the respondents 3, 4 and 5 to restore back possession of the premises in dispute to the petitioners. (b) Issue a. writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to maintain law and order at least providing the protection of law to the petitioners whereby they may enjoy and exercise their legal rights and fundamental rights and the same may not be violated by taking law in their own hands by respondents 3, 4 and 5 or anybody else. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. I not to refuse the renewal of the licence of the petitioner on account of the incident, which had taken place in the mid-night of 31/12/1994 and I st January 1995 referred to in the writ petition. (d) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. " (e) Issue an order awarding costs. "on 7-3-1995 learned Single Judge passed the following interim order issuing interim mandamus to the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly to look into the matter and to restore the possession of the property to the petitioners if the allegations made by them are found to be correct. "in this petition the allegation is that the petitioners were forcibly dispossessed by the respondents through local Mafia. This allegation is serious because nobody can be dispossessed except by following the procedure of law. Hence on the facts and circumstances I issue an interim mandamus to the D. M. , Bareilly and S. S. P. Bareilly to look into the matter and if the allegations of the petitioners that they were forcibly and illegally dispossessed, are correct, they should restore possession to the petitioners forthwith or show cause within two weeks. "in pursuance of the above order the District Magistrate constituted a committee consisting of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Bareilly and Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, to make enquiry. The said committee submitted the report dated 20-3-1995 before the District Magistrate, which was filed before the learned Judge. On 27-11-1995 the learned Judge passed the following order :"heard Shri R. P. Goyal and Shri S. K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri H. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and Shri Vineet Saran for Shri A. K. Vishnoi, the then District Magistrate and Shri Gurbachan Lal, the then Senior Superintendent of Police. In view of the affidavits of District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, it is evident that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had taken forcible possession of the premises in question instead of taking proceedings. Hence, this forcible possession is clearly illegal and I confirm the interim mandamus dated 7-3-95 and direct the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to hand over possession back to the petitioner within two weeks from today. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will ensure that this order is complied with. However, it is open to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to take such legal proceedings such as civil suit or other proceedings as they may be
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
