Point of Law: Rights on the property, in case established, are protected. Not only life and liberty of the petitioner is required to be protected but also use of her property is required to be protected. In this regard relevant order be passed/issued within three days of receipt of certified copy of this order.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed to seek a direction on respondent nos.1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioner and her family members. It is also to take an appropriate decision on the representation preferred by the petitioner.

2. The other prayer of the writ petition is to direct respondent no.1 to ensure that petitioner and her family members are not evicted and dispossessed from the property by using criminal force.

3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner purchased a piece of land from her husband Paras Nath Singh on 19.8.2014 through a registered sale deed. After purchase of land, petitioner occupied it.

4. Before construction of building on the land so purchased, petitioner approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for change of land use. The Sub Divisional Magistrate called for the spot inspection report and after its receipt, land use was changed for non agricultural purpose.

5. When petitioner started raising construction, it was obstructed by respondent nos.11 and 12 as they are influential persons. It is not only due to their involvement in politics but as they are running more than 54 educational institutions. Respondent no.11 and 12 used their influences to restrain the petitioner to raise construction despite the fact that another part of the land out of Gata No.291 was purchased by their Samiti on 2.7.2019 i.e. much subsequent to the purchase of the land by the petitioner. The respondent nos. 11 and 12 threatened the petitioner, thus, they come under the shadow of fear and terror. It is more so when administration fail to protect their life and liberty despite a detailed representation on 5.7.2019.

6. Giving facts of the case, it is stated that the petitioner purchased part of land of Gata No.291 much prior to the purchase of the land by a Samiti of respondent nos.11 and 12. The total area of Gata No.291 is 0.227 hectares out of which petitioner purchased only 0.02 hectares of land. The petitioner intended to use the land for residential purpose, thus sought change of land use from agricultural to non agricultural. It was permitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate by its order dated 20.5.2019 after spot inspection report.

7. The purchase of other part of land out of Gata No.291 by the opposite party nos.11 and 12 on 2.7.2019 was basically to take a passage from the main road to the land occupied by them in the back side of the land of Gata No.291. The land purchased by the petitioner is on the other side to the land purchased by the respondent no.11 and 12, out of Gata No. 291 yet they started creating hindrance in peaceful possession of the petitioner. Due to the influence of respondent nos.11 and 12, the official respondents exerted pressure on the petitioner not to raise construction rather forced to sell the land to the private respondents. The petitioner did not accept the proposal despite the threats. The police then got involved so that the petitioner give possession of the land to respondent nos.11 and 12.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to see that the land is sold to respondent nos.11 and 12, they started raising issue in regard to the portion of the land purchased by the petitioner. It was stated that the portion of the land occupied by the petitioner was not sold by the seller, rather it was other portion of Gata No.291. It is without describing as to on what basis, the aforesaid allegation has been made.

9. The petitioner even preferred a civil suit to seek injunction but to counter it, the respondent nos.11 and 12 had taken help of the official respondents due to their political influence. It is despite the fact that no dispute in regard to the portion of the land could have been raised by respondent nos.11 and 12 as the legal heirs of the erstwhile owner of the land have admitted sale of the portion occupied by the petitioner. The fact aforesaid came in the knowledge of the petitioner when a suit filed by