S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is also one of those cases where provisions of allotment provided under Section 16 of U. P. Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as U.P.R.C. Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) has been utterly abused for grabbing a house by the petitioner who appears to have some political influence with the clear, active support of District Supply Officer (D. S. O. in short), Moradabad. acting as Rent Control and Eviction Officer, hereinafter referred to as R. C. & E. O. Sri Suresh Chandra Jain, learned Addl. District Judge, Court No. 14, Moradabad, while allowing Rent Control Revision No. 2 of 2003 which was filed by landlord respondents against allotment order has very elaborately given the details of the entire proceedings which were initiated and concluded within two weeks. The learned Addl. District Judge has risen to the occasion and has given a damning verdict exposing grave ill-treatment of the relevant provisions of allotment provided under U. P. R. C. Act at the hands of pliable executive. The Court is using strong words under sheer anguish. With alarming continuity such cases are coming before the Court which show that inspite of grave concern shown, severe strictures passed and directions to mend their ways issued by this High Court Rent Control & Eviction Officers are acting in most audacious manner. The style of passing orders of allotment by R. C. & E. Os. particularly when allottees are influential persons shows utter disregard of the provisions of law, let the devil take care attitude towards directions of this Court given in various judgments and abject surrender to the unjust demand of the persons in power and position. The provision of allotment has been contrived into most convenient tool of house grabbing. Justice Markandey Katju in his leading judgments on the subject in Sunil Chatterjee v. R. C. & E. O., 1995 (2) ARC 79 and R.K. Agarwal v. R. C. & E. O.. Bareilly. 1995 (2) ARC 73, exposed the nexus between powerful, influential allottees and R. C. & E. Os. and issued several directions with the fond hope that such things would not happen in future. Alas, hope floundered and was sunk by unscrupulous and uncaring R. C. & E. Os. There was a time when bureaucracy was quite independent and powerful guided only by law and the rules. In order to redeem its lost glory it will have to rise from its ashes like a phoenix.
(2.) Latter part of para 6 of the aforesaid R. K. Agarwal's authority is quoted below : "Para 6.-This Court cannot tolerate this kind of behaviour, otherwise no decent and law abiding citizen will be safe in his house. A mob of hooligans may storm into the house with a surreptitious allotment order, beat up the occupants, throw them out along with their belongings and hoist a flag of the party as is being done these days. It is deeply regrettable that the authorities are turning a blind eye to these illegalities and succumbing to the politicians and behaving in the worst manner when their duty is to uphold law and order. The bureaucrats and the police receive their salaries and their perquisites from the taxes paid by the public. It is therefore, their undoubted duty to give in return to the public law and order, but these bureaucrats and police officers are not justifying their salt by behaving in a cowardly fashion before the politicians. It is the duty of the civil servants to uphold law and order and they will not be permitted to take shelter behind the plea that they are carrying out the orders of political masters when such orders are clearly and flagrantly illegal."
(3.) Para 12, part para 14 and paras 16 and 22 of the aforesaid authority of Sunil Chatterjee are quoted below : "Para 12.-Before dealing with the facts of the case, it is necessary for me to mention that a new phenomenon has arisen in Uttar Pradesh recently, that is the phenomenon of house grabbing. The modus operandi in the series of cases which have come before this Court is almost the same, which is to procure a collusive allotment order from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, and then take possession of the house. The same has happened in the present case also. Illegal house grabbing has become the order of the day in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the time has come when this must be stopped, otherwise civilized society will cease to exist." "Para 14.-In the present case, the report of the process server dated 12.7.1994 which is part of Annexure-2 to the writ petition clearly shows that no notice was served on Sukumar Chatterjee. From the facts disclosed it is evident that the so called service by affixation is fraudulent. In fact, Rule 28 of the Rules makes it clear that affixation is the last mode of service to be availed of only when the other methods fail and it is evident that no real effort was made to affect service according to the proceeding modes mentioned in the rule. The facts of the case disclose that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was sitting with a pre-determined mind to allot the premises to the respondent No. 3 and the entire proceeding held by him was collusive and hence illegal." "Para 16.-In the Roman Catholic Diocess case (supra), it has been mentioned that in paragraph 22 that the notice by affixation is the last method of serving notice, and it is to be resorted to only after other methods mentioned in Rule 28 to effect service have failed. In my opinion there is nothing to indicate that any effort was really made to serve Sukumar Chatterjee according to the methods mentioned in Clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 28, and hence Rule 28 has been violated." "Para 22.-It may be mentioned that by another order dated 13.4.1995 I had directed the Home Secretary and Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to file their personal affidavits stating how many cases of illegal house grabbing have come to their notice during the last three months, giving details of the same. In pursuance of this direction the Principal Home Secretary and the Director of Police, U. P. appeared personally before me and filed their personal affidavits in which they have given the list of several cases relating to illegal house grabbing in Uttar Pradesh and also stated that the State Government has now taken action against the illegal house grabbing with full seriousness and have issued clear orders to all the authorities to take serious action in the matter. A perusal of these affidavits makes it clear that in U. P. illegal house grabbing is going on for some time as admitted by the authorities themselves.";