2014 Supreme(All) 449
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tarun Agarwala, Rajan Roy, JJ.
Jyoti Shankar Pandey and others -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others -Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 6603 of 2014
Decided On : 21-02-2014
For the Petitioner: Anil Tiwari
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Tarun Verma and Vishwa Pratap Singh.
The possession of a property cannot be disturbed except in accordance with the law, and the practice of house grabbing is condemned.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - House Grabbing - Smt. Chetan Atma Govil v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and others, 1995 (26) ALR 114 and Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (42) ALR 817
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent any action against them and to provide police protection, alleging illegal attempts to dispossess them from their residential house. The respondents claimed ownership of the house and alleged that the petitioners had forcibly entered the house through police force.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were in possession of the house and could not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law. It condemned the practice of house grabbing and directed the police to ensure no unforeseen incident takes place at the premises and to provide adequate security to the petitioners. The court also ordered the completion of the investigation within six weeks and initiation of disciplinary action against the involved police personnel if their role was affirmed.
Issues: Illegal attempts to dispossess the petitioners, conflicting claims of ownership, involvement of police personnel in house grabbing.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners' possession of the house, as supported by evidence, cannot be disturbed except in accordance with the law. The court condemned the practice of house grabbing and emphasized the duty of the administration, especially the police, to maintain law and order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, issuing a writ of mandamus to ensure no unforeseen incident takes place at the premises, providing adequate security to the petitioners, and directing the completion of the investigation within six weeks.
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any action against the petitioners with regard to their peaceful living and possession in their residential house being House No. 581/1, Ramanand Nagar, Allahpur, Allahabad except in accordance with law. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide police protection, especially against the Sub-Inspector and In-charge Police Chowki.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner No. 1 purchased House No. 581/1 measuring 252 sq. metres at Allahpur in the name of his daughter from Sangam Lal by means of a registered sale-deed dated 13th December, 2013, pursuant to which, the petitioners were put in possession and are residing therein. It is alleged that on 26th January, 2014 two persons alongwith armed persons came to their house and threatened the occupants to vacate the premises. These two persons alleged themselves to be the true owners of the house in question. The petitioners lodged an FIR on the same date being Case Crime No. 31 of 2014. In the night of 27th January, 2014 around 10.00 pm, the same persons alongwith armed persons again came at their residence and started throwing out the household articles from the house. The neighbours interfered and intimated the police. The incident was also reported to the Senior Superintendent of Police. On account of the intervention of the neighbours, these unknown persons made a retreat only to come again on the night of 28th January, 2014 and, this time, these persons were accompanied by Sri S.K. Sharma, Sub-Inspector. It is alleged that these persons dragged the ladies out of the house and also indulged in beating some of the occupants. It is alleged that the house was locked by the Sub-Inspector but upon intervention of certain Advocates who are the friends of the petitioner No. 1 and other officials of the administration, the possession was given back to the petitioner after midnight. It is alleged that for the incident, which occurred on 28th January, 2014, an application was filed before the police station but no first information report was lodged.
3. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the present writ petition, which came up for admission on 31st January, 2014. This Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner and directed him to visit the spot and submit a report. The Advocate Commissioner submitted a report indicating that the petitioners were occupying the premises and their household articles were found inside the house. The Court Commissioner also reported that an attempt was made to demolish the boundary wall at the rear portion of the house. In the light of the aforesaid report, notice was issued to respondent No. 7 and to the state authorities to file a counter-affidavit. The Court also directed the Senior Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer to ensure that no unforeseen incident takes place at the premises in question and to provide adequate security to the petitioners in the event, the need arose.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police. The respondent admits that a first information report was lodged on 26th January, 2014 and action was taken and that S.K. Sharma, Sub-Inspector was appointed as the Investigating Officer. The respondent also admits the incident, which took place on 27th January, 2014 and submitted that pursuant to receiving a telephonic call received at 100, the police reached the spot and interfered and tried to resolve the matter. The respondent further admits the incident of 28th January, 2014 and submitted that Chowki In-Charge was sent to resolve the matter. The respondents further admitted that the petitioner’s application dated 28th January, 2014 was received and the Station House Officer was directed to maintain law and order. The respondents further submit that o