JAI PRAKASH Vs. ADDL DISTT MAGISTRATE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. Illegal house grabbing seems to be rapidly becoming the order of the day in many places in Uttar Pradesh. This court will be failing in its duty if it does not voice its protest against these brazen acts of law lessness. A men's house is said to be his castle. But when the castle is invaded illegally by a mob of anti-social elements who beat up the inhabitants, throw them out and illegally occupy the same it is a matter of great concern for all law abiding citizens. Several instances of such illegal house grabbing have lately come to the notice of this court, and reports about them have been published widely in the newspapers. The present case is one of the several illustrations in this connection.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner and landlord of house No. 107 (old No. 1130), P. L. Sharma Road, Begum Bagh, Meerut. THE petitioner is an old man of about 72 years of age and is having living with him his wife aged 66 years, sons, daughter-in-law and grand children. THE house in question is a double story building. THE ground floor consists of five rooms, store and other amenities. THE entire ground floor except one room on the south western corner was let out in 1982 to the District Horticulture Officer, Meerut. A map of the ground floor is annexure-1 to the writ petition. THE petitioner has alleged that when he gave the ground floor on rent he had minor children but since then his children have grown up and are adults. His elder son is married and younger son is 21 years of age and is a heart patient whom the petitioner wants to settle in some business. THE petitioner entered into some correspondence with District Horticulture Officer, Meerut for getting back the ground floor, and it is alleged in paragraph 10 that the District Horticulture Officer told him that he would vacate whenever he gets alternative accomodation. It is alleged in paragraph 12 that on learning that there was likelihood that the District Horticulture Officer would shift his office to Vikas Bhawan, respondent No. 3 wanted to grab the property. He filed allotment application on 7-6-1994 on which the Rent Control Inspector issued notice dated 18-6-1994 stating therein that on 23-6-1994 he would be visiting the accomodation in dispute for inspection. It is alleged in paragraph 13 that this notice was served on the petitioner's wife on 23-6-1994 by the Peon at about 2. 00 p. m. when the petitioner was away at the school about six kilometers away and she could not contact her husband. It is alleged in paragraph 13 that a report dated 25-6-1994 was prepared by the Rent Control Inspector in collusion with the respondent No. 3 in order to illegally grab the house in question. In paragraph 17 it is alleged that when the petitioner came to know of the notice he went to the office of the respondent No. 1 on 27-6-1994 and came to know that an illegal report has been published inviting objections. THE petitioner filed objection dated 28-7-1994, true copy of which is annexure-4 to the writ petition. However, by order dated 8-8-1994 vacancy was declared, true copy of which is annexure-6 to the petition. THE petitioner has filed alongwith his objection filed on 28-8-1994 also a release application, while respondent No. 3 on 12-8-1994 had filed the allotment application.

(3.) A perusal of the said rule shows that when an allotment order is passed Form C has to be issued to the person in unauthorised occupation asking him to deliver the vacant possession to the person named in the allot ment order within such period as may be specified which shall in no case be less than a week from the date of service of the order. If possession is not obtained in pursuance of Form C then the Collector may issue Form D to the Police Station for putting the allottee in possession. In the present case admittedly the possession was taken by the respondent No. 3 on the very day of the allotment order, which is clearly illegal because Form C has to be issued after passing the allotment order giving atleast one week's time to the occupant to vacate. It is thus clear that there has been violation of Rule 14 and possession was taken by the respondent No. 3 illegally without giving the petitioner opportunity to get a stay order from the revisional court, and without giving him at least one week's time as required by Rule 14.