w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Jyoti Shankar Pandey & Others v/s State of U.P. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- JYOTI LIMITED [Active] CIN = L36990GJ1943PLC000363

Company & Directors' Information:- JYOTI LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101JK1964PLC000286

Company & Directors' Information:- JYOTI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC024784

Company & Directors' Information:- SHANKAR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109UP1958PTC002682

    C.M.W.P. No. 6603 of 2014

    Decided On, 21 February 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN AGARWALA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN ROY

    For the Appellants: Anil Tiwari, Advocate. For the Respondents: Tarun Verma, Vishwa Pratap Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Tarun Agarwala, J.

1. The petitioners' have filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any action against the petitioners with regard to their peaceful living and possession in their residential house being House No. 581/1, Ramanand Nagar, Allahpur, Allahabad except in accordance with law. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide police protection, especially against the Sub-Inspector and In-charge Police Chowki. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the petitioner No. 1 purchased House No. 581/1 measuring 252 sq. metres at Allahpur in the name of his daughter from Sangam Lal by means of a registered sale-deed dated 13th December, 2013, pursuant to which, the petitioners were put in possession and are residing therein. It is alleged that on 26th January, 2014 two persons along with armed persons came to their house and threatened the occupants to vacate the premises. These two persons alleged themselves to be the true owners of the house in question. The petitioners lodged an FIR on the same date being Case Crime No. 31 of 2014. In the night of 27th January, 2014 around 10.00 pm, the same persons along with armed persons again came at their residence and started throwing out the household articles from the house. The neighbours interfered and intimated the police. The incident was also reported to the Senior Superintendent of Police. On account of the intervention of the neighbours, these unknown persons made a retreat only to come again on the night of 28th January, 2014 and, this time, these persons were accompanied by Sri S.K. Sharma, Sub-Inspector. It is alleged that these persons dragged the ladies out of the house and also indulged in beating some of the occupants. It is alleged that the house was locked by the Sub-Inspector but upon intervention of certain Advocates who are the friends of the petitioner No. 1 and other officials of the administration, the possession was given back to the petitioner after midnight. It is alleged that for the incident, which occurred on 28th January, 2014, an application was filed before the police station but no first information report was lodged.

2. The petitioner, thereafter, filed the present writ petition, which came up for admission on 31st January, 2014. This Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner and directed him to visit the spot and submit a report. The Advocate Commissioner submitted a report indicating that the petitioners. were occupying the premises and their household articles were found inside the house. The Court Commissioner also reported that an attempt was made to demolish the boundary wall at the rear portion of the house. In the light of the aforesaid report, notice was issued to respondent No. 7 and to the state authorities to file a counter-affidavit. The Court also directed the Senior Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer to ensure that no unforeseen incident takes place at the premises in question and to provide adequate security to the petitioners in the event, the need arose.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police. The respondent admits that a first information report was lodged on 26th January, 2014 and action was taken and that S.K. Sharma, Sub-Inspector was appointed as the Investigating Officer. The respondent also admits the incident, which took place on 27th January, 2014 and submitted that pursuant to receiving a telephonic call received at 100, the police reached the spot and interfered and tried to resolve the matter. The respondent further admits the incident of 28th January, 2014 and submitted that Chowki In-Charge was sent to resolve the matter. The respondents further admitted that the petitioner's application dated 28th January, 2014 was received and the Station House Officer was directed to maintain law and order. The respondents further submit that on 29th January, 2014 an order was passed taking away the investigation from S.K. Sharma, Sub-Inspector, who was transferred to police line.

4. Upon a direction from the Court, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the police is still investigating the matter.

5. Respondent No. 7, the alleged person, who was involved in the incident, which occurred on 26, 27th and 28th January, 2014 was impleaded under the orders of the Court. The said respondent has filed a counter-affidavit contending that he had purchased Araji No. 39, 41, 50, 51 and 52 measuring 378 sq. meters by means of a registered sale-deed dated 19th October, 2012, pursuant to which, respondent No. 7 was given possession and his name was mutated in the municipal records. It is alleged that a portion of the house in question was also part of the sale-deed of respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7 however, contends that on 1st March, 2013 certain antisocial elements had taken illegal possession of his property. In this regard, he had filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate praying that possession be given back and had also filed another application for demarcation of the plot. Since nothing happened, respondent No. 7 filed another application before the District Magistrate, who by an order dated 15th July, 2013 directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to look into the matter. It transpires that the Kanoongo submitted a report dated 26th July, 2013 indicating that since the plot was in an abadi area, it was not possible to demarcate the plot and that no possession could be given to respondent No. 7 and that he should be advised to file a civil suit. In spite of the aforesaid report, it transpires that respondent No. 7 filed a fresh application dated 8th October, 2013 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate praying that possession of the plot should be given by police force. The respondent No. 7 contended that at this stage Sangam Lal, who eventually sold the property to the petitioners started claiming himself that he was the owner and, subsequently, sold the house to the petitioners vide sale-deed dated 13th December, 2013. Respondent No. 7 filed a first information report against Sangam Lal on 11th January, 2014 indicating therein that he has been dispossessed by Sangam Lal and that possession should be given back to him. Respondent No. 7 further contends that when he returned from his village on 29th January, 2014 he found that he had been dispossessed by the petitioner from the house in question. The respondents submitted that the petitioner has misused the process of the Court and have forcibly entered into the house through police force, which is owned by them.

6. The Sub-Inspector has also filed a counter-affidavit. The said respondent admits his presence at the spot on the night of 28th January, 2014 and also admits that the investigation was taken away from him.

7. In the light of the rival stand of the parties, the Court has heard Sri Anil Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Tarun Verma, Advocate assisted by Sri Vishwa Pratap. Singh, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sale-deed of the petitioners is different and distinct from the sale-deed of respondent No. 7. The boundaries are different, the house number is different and the area is different. Further, the sale-deed of respondent No. 7 does not indicate that there exists any structure, namely, a house and only indicates that a small portion of open land from 5 plots have been purchased. The learned Counsel contended that in the garb of the sale-deed, the respondents was using police force and armed persons to grab the house of the petitioners illegally without any authority of law. It was also alleged that the brother of respondent No. 7 is a sitting MLA of the ruling party.

9. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the incident of house grabbing, which occurred on 26th, 27th and 28th January, 2014 has been admitted by the police in their counter-affidavit. On the other hand, the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 7 reveals a vague stand with regard to his possession of the property in question. Respondent No. 7 contends in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit that he was dispossessed on 1st March, 2013 by unknown antisocial elements. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit, respondent No. 7 contends that he was again dispossessed in July, 2013. The Kanoongo in his report dated 26th July, 2013 categorically states that possession cannot be given to respondent No. 7. In paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit, respondent No. 7 contends that he moved an application in August, 2013 praying for delivery of possession. In paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit, respondent No. 7 contends that he was dispossessed on 26th January, 2014. Finally, in paragraph 17, the respondent No. 7 contends that when he came back from his village he found that the petitioners had taken possession of the house on 29th January, 2014.

10. The fact that the petitioners are in possession of the house in question is borne out by the counter-affidavit filed by the police as well as by the Advocate Commissioner's report. The possession of the petitioners is further fortified by the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 7 indicating that he was not in possession since March, 2013.

11. The Court further finds from a perusal of the sale-deeds of the petitioners and respondent No. 7 that the areas of the plot are different and the boundaries are different. Whereas the sale-deed of the petitioners indicate the purchase of land and house, the sale-deed of respondent No. 7 does not indicate the existence of any structure such as house in question.

12. House grabbing is a serious matter. Taking illegal and forcible possession without any authority of law on the basis of an alleged sale-deed is wholly illegal. The country is governed by a rule of law and no one could be allowed to break the law. This Court in Smt. Chetan Alma Govil v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and others 1995 (26) ALR 114 and Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P. and others 2001 (42) ALR 817 has condemned the practice of house grabbing.

13. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that apparently on the basis of the affidavits that has been filed before the Court, the petitioners are in posses

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

sion and they cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law. An attempt to grab the house forcefully was made. It is alleged that a Sub-Inspector and Chowki In-charge were also involved. The rule of law is required to be maintained. It is the duty of the administration, especially the police to maintain law and order and ensure that no such incident of house grabbing takes place. The practice of house grabbing is deprecated. We accordingly, dispose of the writ petition by issuing a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to ensure that no unforeseen incident takes place at the premises in question, such as house grabbing and that adequate security is provided to the petitioners in the event, such a need arises. We also direct the police authorities to complete the investigation as early as possible preferably within six weeks from today. The investigation will also include the role of the Sub-Inspector and other police personnel and, in the event, their role is affirmed, disciplinary action would be initiated against them. It would be open to the parties to file a suit in a Court of law to establish their title on the property in question.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-07-2020 M/s. Gulabchand Shankar Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Shankar Saran Versus Chairman & Managing Director Eastern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-06-2020 Jyoti Jaiswal & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 Hari Om Gupta & Another Versus Jyoti Bhatia High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
29-05-2020 Gauri Shankar Alias Bachchan Yadava & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-05-2020 M/s. Gemini Circus, Dadar T.T., Mumbai, Rep. by its Partner Ajay Shankar Versus M/s. Great Gemini Circus, KDA Colony, Kanpur High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-05-2020 M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Patna Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-05-2020 Gauri Shankar Versus Rakesh Kumar & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-04-2020 Shankar Sakharam Kenjale (Died) Through His Legal Heirs Versus Narayan Krishna Gade & Another Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-03-2020 Chetana Shankar Manapure & Others Versus Bandu In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
19-03-2020 Chetana Shankar Manapure & Others Versus Bandu In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
12-03-2020 Sambhaji Vishnu Kharat (Dead) Through L.R. & Others Versus Sarjerao Shankar Kharat & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Shankar Lotlikar Versus Pundalik Venktesh Verlekar In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
02-03-2020 Shankar Jaganath Mane Versus Sikkandar Mohammed Bidiwala & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-02-2020 Jyoti Sawhney Versus State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
13-02-2020 P. Shankar Versus P. Uma & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Rajasthan Housing Board Through Secretary Jyoti Nagar Jaipur Rajasthan & Another Versus V.V. Harit National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-02-2020 Uma Shankar Singh Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
06-02-2020 Shiv Shankar Tripathi Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Shanker Chhetri @ Shankar Chhetri Versus Chairman, State Bank Of India, Central Officer, Mumbai High Court of Judicature at Patna
05-02-2020 Parsvnath Developers Limited, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Delhi & Others Versus Jyoti Sood @ Jyotish Lata Sood & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-01-2020 Shiv Shankar Mishra Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Dhivya Steels, Rep. by its Prop. R. Shiva Shankar Versus The Controller of Stores, Southern Railway, Perambur, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-01-2020 Begum Sakina Khatoon Versus Gouri Shankar Dey & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-01-2020 Ravi Shankar J. Bomanwar & Others V/S Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow & Others Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
07-01-2020 Jyoti Agrawal & Another Versus Indu Bai & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-01-2020 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Jyoti Ajay Avatade & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-01-2020 Vasant Sadashiv Joshi and Others V/S Yeshwant Shankar Barve and Others. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-12-2019 Vishnu Shankar Pandey Versus Maya Pandey High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-12-2019 M. Shankar & Others V/S M/s. Switching Power Conversion Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director R. Srinivas High Court of Karnataka
18-12-2019 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Shree Shankar Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-12-2019 R. Venkatesan Versus P.S. Shankar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 Dadaji Shankar Patil & Others Versus The Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-12-2019 Harish C. Brahmbhatt & Others Versus Sashi Shankar & Others Supreme Court of India
11-12-2019 Hitendra Versus Shankar & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-12-2019 Jyoti Soni & Another Versus Vijaya Bank National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-11-2019 Gouri Shankar Jain Versus Punjab National Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-11-2019 Adilsait Versus C. Shankar Rao & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-11-2019 Avijit Mitra & Others Versus Shankar Lal Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
07-11-2019 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Through its Authorized Official & Divisional Manager Versus Jyoti Ganesh Gavhane & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
07-11-2019 D. Shankar Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
04-11-2019 Shyambai Versus Shankar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-11-2019 Shree Shankar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-11-2019 Rishab Kumar Sogani Versus State Bank of India Branch Chandni Chowk, Infront of Gauri Shankar Mandir New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-11-2019 Shankar Versus Namdev Samaj Dharmashala & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
25-10-2019 A. Ramachandra Shetty, Represented by GPA Holder, B. Shankar, Bengaluru Versus A.T. Babu Rao & Others High Court of Karnataka
25-10-2019 Jyoti Prakash Ganguly Versus Samrat Ghosh & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
14-10-2019 Jyoti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-10-2019 Samaj Bhushan Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Versus Shankar (since deceased through legal heirs) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-10-2019 Jawahar Jyoti Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-10-2019 N. Shankar Prasad Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
24-09-2019 Ram Shankar & Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-09-2019 Parushuram Laxman Biraj Since Deceased by his Lrs Shankar Parushuram Biraj Versus State of Karnataka, Revenue Department by its Secretary High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-09-2019 K.S. Shankar Versus K. Jyothi High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
05-09-2019 Jyoti Zaverchand Gala Versus Vilas Chandrakant Gaonkar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-09-2019 Jyoti & Another Versus The State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
29-08-2019 Shankar Varadharajan & Others Versus State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Rep. by its Deputy General Manager & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-08-2019 Sandhya Shankar alias Sandhya Goni V/S Ashok S. Goni And Others High Court of Karnataka
07-08-2019 Padmanabh Shankar Versus Union Bank of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-08-2019 Shankar Adawal & Others Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Delhi
01-08-2019 M/s. Vijay Tanks & Vessels Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Ranganathan Raghavan Versus M/s. Simplex Infrastructure Limited, Rep. by Director, Shankar Guha, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-07-2019 Shankar Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
22-07-2019 State of Goa, Through Police Inspector/IO Versus Shankar Venkatram Reddy In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-07-2019 Dr. Shankar Lal Garg Versus Kuladhipati, Vikram University & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
18-07-2019 Shankar & Another Versus State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Sri Ramachandra Medical College Police Station (SRMC), Thiruvallur District High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2019 Jyoti Deepak Chavan & Others Versus Election Commissioner State Election Commission, Maharashtra State & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-06-2019 C. Shankar Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
27-06-2019 Dr. B.R. Shankar & Others Versus B.R. Srinivasa Rao & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-06-2019 Kantu Shankar Dessai & Another Versus Sociedade Agricola Dos Gauncares De Cuncolim E Veroda & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
10-06-2019 Sheo Shankar Dubey Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
03-06-2019 Gouri Shankar Agarwal & Another Versus Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-05-2019 Ravi Shankar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
15-05-2019 Jyoti Taide Versus Sunil Dambare & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-05-2019 Shio Shankar Dubey & Others Versus State of Bihar Supreme Court of India
08-05-2019 Jyoti Surekha Gahlon (Retd.) V/S Jarnail Singh Bajwa And Others Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
07-05-2019 Bhivchandra Shankar More Versus Balu Gangaram More & Others Supreme Court of India
07-05-2019 Bhivchandra Shankar More V/S Balu Gangaram More and Others. Supreme Court of India
04-05-2019 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Jyoti & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
01-05-2019 Shankar Lal Versus Lrs of Satya, Narayan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
26-04-2019 Vijay Shankar Aggarwal Versus Sunita Aggarwal & Others High Court of Delhi
24-04-2019 Shankar Sales Promotion Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - II High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-04-2019 Gurushantappa and Others V/S Shankar and Others. High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
23-04-2019 Dharmaji Shankar Shinde & Others Versus Rajaram Shripad Joshi (Dead) Through Lrs. & Others Supreme Court of India
22-04-2019 Satendra Kumar Mishra Versus Surojit Shankar Ganguly & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-04-2019 Jyoti Manohar Shetye Versus Ahsok Jagannath Powar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-04-2019 Ranjit Kumar Karmakar @ Dulal Karmakar Versus Hari Shankar Das Supreme Court of India
16-04-2019 Shankar Reddiar (deceased) & Others Versus Royal Reddiar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2019 Jitender Tomar & Another Versus Shankar Lal & Others (National Insurance Co. Ltd.) High Court of Delhi
08-04-2019 Chief Manger, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Tonk Aagar Versus Bhawani Shankar Dholi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
02-04-2019 Anant Shankar Bhave Versus Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation Supreme Court of India
27-03-2019 P. Shankar Versus The Chairman & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-03-2019 Kripa Shankar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
21-03-2019 M. Shankar Versus The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2019 R. Shankar & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary Public Works Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-03-2019 Dhruba Jyoti Borah Versus Umesh Prasad High Court of Gauhati
06-03-2019 M.S. Shankar & Another Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-03-2019 Shankar Chakraborty Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box