- (1.) This writ petition with multiple reliefs in reference to the issue of land grabbing seeks quashing of R.S. No. 714 of 2009 (YMCA through S.K. Bajpai v. YMCA through L.J. Bhatti and another) pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, opposite party no.5 herein and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2008 passed in R.S. No. 520 of 2007 (Sahib Deen through Raju alias Anil v. YMCA). It is also prayed that O.P. No.5 be directed to decide the pending application of the petitioner under section 340 Cr.P.C. and their recall application registered as Misc. Case No. 138-C of 2009 (National Council of YMCA v. Sahib Deen and another).
(2.) Besides the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner cited instances of land grabbing particularly by the respondents in collusion with some lawyers and other persons in an organized and designed manner to grab properties situate at prime locations in the city of Lucknow by instituting frivolous suits in the name of fake persons and obtaining a decree to that effect. The petitioner prayed that such instances as mentioned in paragraph 44 onwards of the writ petition should be inquired into and therefore, appropriate direction be given to the State impleaded through the Principal Secretary (Home) and Principal Secretary (Law), the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, to initiate an independent enquiry in the criminal and fraudulent activities of the private opposite parties including a direction to the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, to hold an enquiry in respect of cases mentioned in paragraph 44 of the writ petition which was taken note of by this Court vide order dated 20.07.2010 where learned District Judge, Lucknow was directed to enquire into the aforesaid allegations of land grabbing cited in the writ petition.
(3.) The District Judge submitted his report on 23.11.2010 after taking evidence and examining lawyers, officer/officials of the court, Raju alias Anil and many more persons, wherein he did find the allegations made in writ petition to be true and recommended for appropriate action. The extract of the aforesaid interim order is as below: "The allegations made in the writ petition are serious, wherein it is also being stated right from paragraph 44 and onwards that this practice has become a modus operandi for certain persons, who according to the petitioners, are opposite parties no. 6, 7 and 8, in connivance with other persons, including the lawyers mentioned in the writ petition, in order to grab the properties, which do not belong to them. Mention of such cases has been made in paragraph 46 of the writ petition. The petition makes a specific averment of the persons, who are associated in the fraudulent transactions, who initiate such fraudulent proceedings to grab the properties. Reliance has been placed upon the case Jhumman Singh and others v. Central Board of Investigation and others, 1995 3 SCC 420, wherein, in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court declared the decree as in executable, since it was obtained by manipulation and also on the case of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2010 2 SCC 114, where the Court took note of new breed of dishonest litigants. As per the averments made in the writ petition and as urged by the counsel for the petitioners, prima facie, there appears to be a group of persons, which includes the lawyers also, who is involved in filing false and fabricated claims in the name of non-living persons and then getting themselves substituted for grabbing the properties, which do not belong to them and in particular, the property situated at prime locations. This requires enquiry and investigation and therefore, we entertain the petition. Let this matter be listed on 16.8.2010. In the meantime, the learned District Judge, Lucknow shall make an enquiry and submit his report on the allegations made in the writ petition, particularly by taking into consideration the averments made in paragraphs 33 and onwards of the writ petition. Further, we, as an interim measure, restrain the opposite parties no. 6, 7, and 8 from alienating or transferring the property in question under the impugned decree, in favour of any person and direct that possession of the petitioners over the property in question shall not be disturbed till further orders of the Court.";