Markandey Katju, J. - (1.) THIS Writ Petition No. 9973 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 5756 of 1995 are being disposed of by a common judgment. I have heard Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri V.B. Singh for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Shri V.K. Shukla for respondent No. 5 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 6 and I have also read the writ petition and counter affidavits in this case as well as in the connected writ petition.
(2.) THE allegations in this petition are that there was House No. 2/1405/2, situated at Chander Nagar, Saharanpur popularly known as Lal Kothi which was allotted to the husband of the petitioner late Shri K.C. Govil, a judicial officer vide allotment order dated 16.6.73, a true copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. Late K.C. Govil with his family including his wife, 4 sons and 3 daughters continuously resided in the house in dispute and continuously paid rent to the landlord. Shri K.C. Govil died on 27.10.90 and after his death, his widow (the petitioner) with other heirs are continuously residing in the house in dispute. During the life time of Shir K.C. Govil the landlord had refused to accept rent and hence the rent was being deposited under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 from 1.6.89. It is alleged in para 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner was continuously living in this house in dispute and other family members were also residing with the petitioner. One son of the petitioner is a Major in the Army and is posted at Meerut about 110 kms. away from Saharanpur and normally resides with the petitioner. All the household goods of the petitioner and her sons are in the house in dispute. It is alleged in para 6 of the petition that one Yashveer Singh in collusion with respondent No. 5 moved an application for allotment of the house in dispute on the ground that the house in dispute is locked. On this application a report was called from the Rent Control Inspector who had submitted his report on 4.1.95. It is alleged in para 8 of the petition that the petitioner was neither aware about the moving of the allotment application by Yashveer Singh nor had any notice or information about the inspection done or report submitted on 4.1.95. It is alleged in para 9 that this report of the inspection was totally false. A true copy of the report is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It appears that on 27.1.95 the respondent No. 5 Suraj Mal claiming himself to be the President of the District Bahujan Samaj Party, filed an application for allotment of the house in dispute. In para 11 it is stated that no notice or information was received by the petitioner regarding the application by the respondent No. 5. In para 12 of the petition it is alleged that respondent No. 5, Suraj Mal who is President of the District Unit of Bahujan Samaj Party had a bad intention to grab the house in dispute for opening the District Office of his party. He as well as the leaders of the Bahujan Samaj Party put pressure on the district authorities to allot the premises and put the respondent No. 5 in possession of the house in dispute. It is alleged in para 13 that on the influence of the respondent No. 5 and the leaders of the ruling party, the respondent No. 1 initiated proceedings for allotment of the house in dispute and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 supported the respondent No. 1 in his illegal act and subsequently the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 actively helped the respondent No. 5 in throwing the petitioner and all her goods out of the house and putting the respondent No. 5 in possession over the house in dispute. In para 14 it is alleged that a false report regarding service of notice was given alleging that notice could not be served on the petitioner due to the lock on the house in dispute. In paras 16 and 17 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner on 8.2.95 heard that some proceedings were fixed in the court of respondent No. 1 regarding the allotment of the house in dispute. The petitioner with her grand -son rushed to the court of the respondent No. 1 to know about the proceedings. In para 13 it is alleged that when the case was called out the petitioner went to call her grand -son who was outside the court and in the meantime the respondent No. 1 noted the absence of the petitioner and without passing any order noted on the file that the house in dispute was vacant. When the petitioner orally opposed the order the case was fixed for 14.2.95, for her written reply. Thus on 3.2.95 the respondent No. 1 had passed the order declaring vacancy, a true copy of which is Annexure 3. The petitioner engaged counsel and filed objections against this order a true copy of which is Annexure 4. The respondent No. 1 on 14.2.95 instead of providing any opportunity to the petitioner wrote on the order sheet "Heard, Order Reserved". It is alleged in para 25 that the respondent No. 1 on 14.2.95 did not pass any order till the rising of the court. Suddenly in the night of 14.2.95 at about 8.30 p.m. the respondent No. 5 alongwith his political supporters and bad elements forcibly tried to take the possession of the house in dispute. In para 27 of the petition it is alleged that on 14.2.95 the respondent No. 5 with local goondas looted the goods of the petitioner and her sons which were kept in the house in dispute. Goods worth more than Rs. 2 lacs had been looted by the respondent No. 5 and his men. The petitioner approached the Police Station but no first information report was lodged. It is alleged in para 28 that on 14.2.95 by the time the court arose an order was passed in favour of the respondent No, 5 behind the back of the petitioner. A true copy of the order is annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. In para 30 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner rushed many times to the respondent No. 1 to bring certified copy of the order dated 14.2.95 but to no avail. On 16.2.95 one son of the petitioner who was posted at Jhansi came to Saharanpur and a revision was filed before the District Judge, Saharanpur. The District Judge after admitting the revision transferred the case to the III Additional District Judge who stayed the order dated 14.2.95. A true copy of the order dated 16.2.95 is Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
(3.) IT is alleged in para 33 of the writ petition that the District Judge had also appointed an Advocate Commissioner to submit a report regarding possession and also to serve notice on respondent No. 5. The Advocate Commissioner on 16.2.95 inspected the house and submitted his report to the court. A true copy of the report is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. From this report it was apparent that on 16.2.95 the petitioner had possession of the house in dispute and all her goods and belongings were in the house. The petitioner again on 16.2.95 submitted a written report to the police but police refused to register the same. A true copy of the first information report is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. In para 37 of the petition it is stated that police officers who did not actively cooperate with the respondent No. 5 in getting possession of the house in dispute, were transferred, and even the Additional Senior Superintendent of Police was transferred. In para 39 it is stated that when the petitioner was residing peacefully in the house in dispute, the respondent No. 5 with the active support of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and with the local police and bad elements attacked the house in dispute. They manhandled the petitioner and threw her out of the house and took all the belongings of the petitioner and her family in the trucks and damaged the Maruti Car of the son of the petitioner. It is alleged that the local police actively cooperated with the respondent No. 5. The cryings of the petitioner was not at all heard by the police and the local administration. The petitioner was left weeping on the street and all her goods and belongings were taken in a truck by the police.;