# Jyoti Shankar Pandey & Ors v. State of U.P. and Or

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 374
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-02-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6603 of 2014
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala, Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jyoti-shankar-pandey-ors-v-state-of-u-p-and-or-42832
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-House
grabbing-clear from advocate commission
report-as well as from court affidavit filed by
S.S.P.-incident of house grabbing proceedsub-inspector also involved with them-such
practice highly depreciated-it is duty of
administration to maintain law and orderadequate security be provided to the
petitioner-investigation including conduct of
S.I. be completed within 6 weeks-if role
affirmed disciplinary action be taken against
S.I. concern.

Held: Para-14
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 possession 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.

Case Law discussed:
1995(26) ALR 114; 2001(42) ALR 817.

## Text

374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case where ordinarily an industrial dispute
can be raised and can be referred to any
adjudication
by
the
appropriate
Government to an industrial Court. The
authorities under Section 6-H cannot
determine any complicated question of
law and also cannot determine in regard
to existence of legal right. The Court went
to observe that it cannot usurp the
jurisdiction of the State Government
under Section 11-B of the U.P. Act, 1947.
The Court said in paras 38 and 39 that the
jurisdiction of Labour Court under
Section 33-C(2) is limited and if existence
of right itself is disputed the provisions
may not be held to have any application.

15. This Court in Sahkari Ganna Vikas
Samiti's case (supra), set aside the order of
labour court on the ground that it had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute of the
employees of co-operative societies.

16. In view of the exposition of law,
stated herein above and considering the facts
that by order dated 25.07.1989, respondent
no. 2 was attached as Assistant Receptionist
but was not paid the salary of the Assistant
Receptionist nor over time charges was paid
for
the
additional
shifts
and
the
workman/respondent no. 2 prayed for
computing the amounts towards salary and
over
time
charges.
The
petitionerCooperative Society disputed the claim of
the respondent no. 2. It was categorically
stated that the respondent no. 2 was never
appointed as Assistant Receptionist nor any
service was taken from the respondent no. 2
in shifts. The labour court by the impugned
order partially allowed the application
holding that the respondent did not work in
shifts but since he was transferred as
Assistant
Receptionist,
therefore,
the
workman was entitled to the salary of
Assistant Receptionist. The order dated
25.07.1989
clearly
states
that
the
workman/respondent no. 2 was not posted as
Assistant Receptionist, but he was attached
with the receptionist and subsequently he
was transferred as a clerk.

17. From the pleadings of the
parties, it is evident that the claim of the
respondent no. 2 is not based upon any
adjudication, the post as well as the
amount was itself disputed which needed
adjudication. The labour court erred in
adjudicating the dispute as it was beyond
its scope under Section 33-C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act.

18. The impugned order dated
20.09.1999 cannot be sustained in the
light of the law stated herein above. The
labour court did not have jurisdiction to
entertain the application as U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 being
special Act and Chapter IX of the Act
provides
for
settlement
of
dispute
including claims for amounts due. The
order impugned passed by the labour
court is also without jurisdiction as the
entire mechanism for redressal of dispute
is provided under Chapter IX of the U.P.
Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The
impugned order dated 20.09.1999 passed
by the respondent no. 1, Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Lucknow cannot
be sustained either on merit or on the
ground of jurisdiction and is hereby
quashed.

19. The writ petition is allowed.

20. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
1 All] Jyoti Shankar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
375
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6603 of 2014

Jyoti Shankar Pandey & Ors........Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors...... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anil Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Tarun Verma, Sri Vishwa
Pratap Singh

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-House
grabbing-clear from advocate commission
report-as well as from court affidavit filed by
S.S.P.-incident of house grabbing proceedsub-inspector also involved with them-such
practice highly depreciated-it is duty of
administration to maintain law and orderadequate security be provided to the
petitioner-investigation including conduct of
S.I. be completed within 6 weeks-if role
affirmed disciplinary action be taken against
S.I. concern.

Held: Para-14
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 possession 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.

Case Law discussed:
1995(26) ALR 114; 2001(42) ALR 817.

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the
writ petition is, that the petitioner no.1
purchased House No.581/1 measuring 252
sq. meters 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, SubInspector. 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
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

6. 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
1 All] Jyoti Shankar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
377
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. Inspite 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 paragragh 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.

11. The fact that the petitioners are in
possession of the house in question is borne
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

12. 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.

13. 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 Atma Govil Vs. Rent
Control and Eviction Officer and others,
1995 (26) ALR 114 and Sanjay Singh Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2001 (42) ALR 817
has condemned the practice of house
grabbing.

14. 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 possession
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.

15. 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.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7120 of 2014

Mohd. Sultan & Ors...... Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors...... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ananad Mohan Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-21-Right to life
and liberty-petitioner seeking protectionfrom unnecessary harassment by local
police-in add hours in mid night-only reason
disclosed the petitioner to be hurdend
criminal-merely filing charge sheet-can not
be basis of presumption of criminal-knocking
the doors by police without any authority of
law-amounts to intrusion into fundamental