- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. This is another case of house grabbing by brazen act of lawlessness. Here the house is a double-Storeyed building of eleven room over a plot of land bearing Municipal No. 3/31, M. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Hari Paravat Ward, Khandari Road, Police Station Hari Parvat, Agra area about 850 sq. yards owned by the petitioner one of whom is the retired Commander of Indian Navy and the other is a widow aged about 78 years. On May 28,1994 about fifty person armed with lathis and guns entered petitioners' house, manhandled the old lady, kicked her out and grabbed the house by brute force. Petitioners approached the district and police administration for help, but the same was ignored. This case was also taken up by the national press and the magazine "india Today" also published an article about house grabbing in the State of U. P. by members of the Rull in political party. In that article grabbing of the petitioners' house by the respondent No. 6, who is District President of the Samajwadi Party was also given prominence. The petitioners' cry for help and taking up of their case by the press was ignored by the district and police officials, who are supposed to provide protection to the people. Having failed to get relief from any quarter the petitioners filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus direct ing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to restore the possession over their house to them. Further prayer for appropriate direction awarding the damages to the petiti oner, has also been made. The facts regarding which there is no dispute, are as under.
(2.) TWO applications dated 6-4-1994 and 21-4-1994 were moved by Sri Paras Nath Rai, father of Sri C. P. Rai, Secretary of the Samajwadi Party, Agra and Sri Bahadur Singh, District President of the same party for allotment of the premises No. 25 (6/387) Khandari Road, Hari Parvat Ward, Police Station Hari Parvat, Agra, of which Sri Punjabi Singh and Sri Jal Singh are the owners. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, declared the said premises vacant and on 28-5-1994 allotted it to the District President, Samajwadi Party, Agra, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 6 to the writ petition. On 28th May, 1994 itself entry order in Form B was issued for handing over the possession of the allotted premises to the respondent No. 6 by 7th June, 1994. On that very' day (28-5-1994) instead of taking possession of the house allotted to him the respondent No. 6 with a mob of about fifty persons armed with lathis and guns forcibly entered and grabbed the petitioners' house and thrown out the owners by brute force. Petitioners' house is different and distinct from the house which was allotted to the respondent No. 6. Both are at a distance of about one furlong and bear distinct Municipal numbers. Their owners are also different. From the perusal of the record and pleadings of the parties it is quite clear that neither the petitioners' house was declared vacant under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, nor was any notice issued to the petitioners at any stage by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra or by any other authority in connection with declaration of the vacancy and the allotment. There is also no order allotting the petitioners' house to the respondent No. 6. The allotment order is regarding a different house bearing Municipal Number 25 (6/387) Khandari Road, Agra. After the petitioners were dispossessed they also filed a revision before the District Judged Agra against the allotment order. The District Judge granted an interim order, but the revision was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioners, because the allotment order issued in favour of respondent No. 6 did not relate to their house. There is no dispute regarding the facts mentioned above. Although the petitioners' house was never allotted to respondent No. 6, but the forcefully grabbed it under the garb of the allotment order which related to another house. After having occupied the petitioners' house forcibly the respondent No. 6 had refused to vacate it. The fact that the house has been grabbed by applying brute force by anti social elements after throwing out the petitioners' is not in dispute. In this connection paragraphs No. 4,5 and 6 of the writ petitions are reproduced below: " (4 ). That the petitioners have been deprived of the house in a manner which runs counter to the Rule of Law forming the very basis of any civilized society. The acts from which the petitioners are aggrieved are the product and an out come of a nasty and ob noxious, nexus existing in the present times between the politicians, anti social elements and the bureaucrats at the local level. (5 ). That the petitioners which include the petitioner No. 1 a retired Commander of Indian Navy and petitioner No. 2 a widow aged about 78 years, have been forced to seek shelter of this Hon'ble Court because of the events which took place on 28th May, 1994. On the said date a mob of about 50 persons armed with lathis and guns forcefully entered the residential house of the petitioners. At that point of time the petitioner No. 2, was all alone in the house. She was man-handled and was virtually kicked out of her own house by sheer use of brute force. Even the personal belongings of the petitioners were not allowed to be removed and all the house hold goods belonging to the petitioners are being enjoyed by the present unauthorised occupants. (6 ). That these persons led by the persons claiming themselves to be the members of the Ruling Party tresspassed into the house of the petitioners. This deplorable act has been done under the banner of Samajwadi party which incidentally happens to be the political party forming the Government in the State of Uttar Pradesh at present and at the time when the acts complained of took place. "
(3.) THESE and other allegations made in the writ petition have not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavits. Sri Yogesh Kumar, the District Magistrate, Agra, has filed a counter- affidavit on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the respondent No. 3 the City Magistrate, Agra, in which no reply to the para graphs 1 to 37 has been given, as according to the District Magistrate they relate to other respondent?, and need no reply from him. Another counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Rizwan Ahmad, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra, in which only reply of paragraph 17 of the writ petition containing the allegations regarding lodging of the report by the petitioners at the police station and in-action of the District Police, has been given. The third counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Atul Kumar, who was at that time the Home Secretary, Government of U. P. in which the aver ments made by the petitioners in the writ petition have not been denied. In this counter-affidavit also the only thing stated is about the petitioners' complaint and giving of the instructions to the Deputy Inspector General of Police for action against the erring persons. Although the respondent No. 6 is represented in this Court by an advocate, but he has not filed any counter-affidavit controverting the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition. The result is that the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition have to be taken as correct. The learned Standing Counsel fairly conceded that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed by them. A Division Bench of this Court in Waqf Alalaulad v. M/s. Sunderdas Daulatram and Sons, Special Appeal No. 954 of 1995, decided on March 13, 1996. : 1996 (1) JCLR 879 (All), has held that if a person has been unlawfully dispossessed from his property without any recourse to law by a private person writ is not to be issued to restore its possession to the person who has been dispossessed from it and the only remedy in such a case is the civil-suit. This Court further held that grabbing the property by Braen act of lawlessness is not a simple case of dispossessing a person from his property and in such a case the State has to come to the rescue of the victims. The relevant extract from the said judgment of this Court is reproduced below : "but dispossession a person from his property otherwise than in due course of law is different from grabbing the property by terrorising the person in possession. To capture the property forcibly by creating terror by applying brute force is not a simple case of dispossess ing a person from property. In a country governed by rule of law no person can be deprived of his life, liberty and property by third degree methods, such as terrorising and man-han dling the person concerned. In such a case not only the person who has been dispossessed of his property but the Society itself is taken to ransom by brute force. Such an act creates terror in the minds of the people and has the effect of shaking the social fabrics of the society. These acts also hit and damage the authority of the Government with the result that the public order, peace and tranguility of the society are disturbed. In such cases it is the duty of the Government to come to the rescue of the persons who are threatened or have been dispossessed from their property by Brazen act of lawlessness. ";