The court ruled that administrative actions and orders from the trial court lacking due procedural safeguards lead to wrongful dispossession.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to 7 to open the lock and restore the possession of the petitioner over her joint ancestral house.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the State Government to take appropriate action against the Respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 for crushing the rule of law.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The case of the petitioner is that her father-in-law namely, Gelhari was a co-tenure holder of plot No.211, area 0.431 hectare. After his death, the names of the petitioner’s husband Shyamji, his brothers Premji, Ramji and Lalji and their mother Shivdhari Devi came to be recorded in the relevant khatauni in his place. During his lifetime, he constructed a two storied building over the said plot, having frontage of 20 feet on Bansi- Dandi Road and a width of 68 feet. On the ground floor, there are two shops, each having a width of 9 feet and a gallery of 6 feet width, which serves as an entrance to the remaining part of the house. In one of the shops, the petitioner has been running a beauty parlour and income from the said business is the only source of livelihood for the petitioner and her family. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Shyamji and his younger brother Premji, unfortunately fell into bad company of respondent No.8 and started consuming liquor with him. Respondent No.8 is a Peshkar in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Taking advantage of the situation, he succeeded in obtaining a sale deed dated 14.2.2024 in his favour for a portion of the undivided residential house, measuring 10 feet from the front and 68 feet in width.

3. It is stated that respondent No.8 procured the said sale deed for a specific portion of the residential house, fully knowing that no division or partition of the aforesaid house had ever taken place amongst the co- sharers and families of all the co-sharers were residing in the same. On 13.1.2025, respondent no.5, the Tehsildar, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar, alongwith police force and respondent no.8, reached the house of the petitioner and asked her to vacate the house. The petitioner strongly opposed the same, stating that the house in question is the ancestral house, in which she has been residing with her three minor children. When respondent No.8 failed in his attempt to take possession by force, he instituted Original Suit No. 49 of 2025 against the petitioner, her husband Shyamji, and his brother Premji, praying for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of property allegedly purchased by him through sale deed dated 14.02.2024; from breaking the lock of the said house; from raising construction over it; and from interfering in his alleged possession. Notably, the other three co-sharers were not impleaded as parties in the said suit.

4. On 27.1.2025, the date of institution of the suit, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) issued summons to the defendants and fixed 24.2.2025 for filing of written statement and 6.3.2025 for framing of issues. On the very same date, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) also granted an ex parte interim injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the alleged possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is categorically stated that respondent No.8 was never put in actual possession of the suit property in pursuance of the sale deed. However, the trial court, without conducting any enquiry on