HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.A. Sharma, B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Commander N P Kulshreshtha - Appellants
Versus
State of U P - Respondents
Decided on : Mar 25, 1996
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' house was forcibly grabbed by the respondent No. 6 with the help of anti-social elements.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent unlawfully occupied the petitioners' house and that the state machinery failed to provide protection despite requests.Issues:
The main issue was the unlawful occupation of the petitioners' property and the failure of authorities to protect their rights.Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that in cases of forceful property occupation, it is within its power to enforce the rule of law and protect individuals from such acts.Final Decision:
The writ petition was allowed, directing restoration of possession to the petitioners and awarding damages against the respondent No. 6.R. A. Sharma, J.
1. This is another case of house grabbing by brazen act of lawlessness. Here the house is a double-Storeyed building of eleven room over a plot of land bearing Municipal No. 3/31, M. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Hari Paravat Ward, Khandari Road, Police Station Hari Parvat, Agra area about 850 sq. yards owned by the petitioner one of whom is the retired Commander of Indian Navy and the other is a widow aged about 78 years. On May 28, 1994 about fifty person armed with lathis and guns entered petitioners' house, manhandled the old lady, kicked her out and grabbed the house by brute force. Petitioners approached the district and police administration for help, but the same was ignored. This case was also taken up by the national press and the magazine "India Today" also published an article about house grabbing in the State of U. P. by members of the Rull in political party. In that article grabbing of the petitioners' house by the respondent No. 6, who is District President of the Samajwadi Party was also given prominence. The petitioners' cry for help and taking up of their case by the press was ignored by the district and police officials, who are supposed to provide protection to the people. Having failed to get relief from any quarter the petitioners filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to restore the possession over their house to them. Further prayer for appropriate direction awarding the damages to the petitioner, has also been made. The facts regarding which there is no dispute, are as under.
2. TWO applications dated 6-4-1994 and 21-4-1994 were moved by Sri Paras Nath Rai, father of Sri C. P. Rai, Secretary of the Samajwadi Party, Agra and Sri Bahadur Singh, District President of the same party for allotment of the premises No. 25 (6/387) Khandari Road, Hari Parvat Ward, Police Station Hari Parvat, Agra, of which Sri Punjabi Singh and Sri Jal Singh are the owners. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, declared the said premises vacant and on 28-5-1994 allotted it to the District President, Samajwadi Party, Agra, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 6 to the writ petition. On 28th May, 1994 itself entry order in Form B was issued for handing over the possession of the allotted premises to the respondent No. 6 by 7th June, 1994. On that very' day (28-5-1994) instead of taking possession of the house allotted to him the respondent No. 6 with a mob of about fifty persons armed with lathis and guns forcibly entered and grabbed the petitioners' house and thrown out the owners by brute force.
Petitioners' house is different and distinct from the house which was allotted to the respondent No. 6. Both are at a distance of about one furlong and bear distinct Municipal numbers. Their owners are also different. From the perusal of the record and pleadings of the parties it is quite clear that neither the petitioners' house was declared vacant under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, nor was any notice issued to the petitioners at any stage by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra or by any other authority in connection with declaration of the vacancy and the allotment. There is also no order allotting the petitioners' house to the respondent No. 6. The allotment order is regarding a different house bearing Municipal Number 25 (6/387) Khandari Road, Agra. After the petitioners were dispossessed they also filed a revision before the District Judged Agra against the allotment order. The District Judge granted an interim order, but the revision was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioners, because the allotment order issued in favour of respondent No. 6 did not relate to their house. There is no dispute regarding the facts mentioned above. Although the petitioners' house was never allotted to respondent No. 6, but the forcefully grabbed it under the garb of the allotment order which related to another house
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.