# Ram Vilas & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1463
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-11
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 80 of 2022
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-vilas-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48433
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

The Constitution of India 1950 - Article
14,19,21 & 22 -Petitioners were called at police
Station-were
detained
and
threatened-their
daughter filed Letter Petition-entertained by
Court-oral summoning and subsequent detention
resorted without lodging of FIR-action of Police
personnel -clear flouting of right under Article
14,19,21 and 22 of the Constitution. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Ram Vilas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1463

7. Hkkjrh; lukru fof/k ds vuqlkj 16
izdkj ds laLdkj crk;s x;s gSa] ftuesa xHkkZokLFkk
ls ysdj vUrsf"V laLdkj 'kkfey gSA xHkkZokLFkk esa
f'k'kq ds mRiUu gksus ls vkSj mlds ej.k rd ds
lHkh izdkj ds laLdkj crk;s x;s gSa tks fuEu
izdkj ls gS%&

1⁄411⁄2 xHkkZ/kku laLdkj] 1⁄421⁄2 iqalou] 1⁄431⁄2
lhekarksuU;u] 1⁄441⁄2 tkrdeZ] 1⁄451⁄2 ukedj.k] 1⁄461⁄2
fu"dze.k] 1⁄471⁄2 vUukizk'u] 1⁄481⁄2 pwMkdeZ] 1⁄491⁄2
fo|kjEHk] 1⁄4101⁄2 d.kZos/k] 1⁄4111⁄2 ;Kksiohr] 1⁄4121⁄2
osnkjaHk] 1⁄4131⁄2 ds'kkar] 1⁄4141⁄2 lekorZu]1⁄4151⁄2 fookg]
1⁄4161⁄2 vUrsf"VA

8. vkxs ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd bl izdkj
mDr 16 laLdkjksa esa L=h iq:"k dh vge Hkwfedk
n'kkZ;h x;h gS vkSj L=h iq:"k ds vHkko esa mDr
laLdkj iw.kZ ugha gks ldras gSaA f'k'kq ds mRiUu u
gksus dh n'kk esa dksbZ Hkh laLdkj lEHko ugha gSA
blh dks /;ku eas j[krs gq, vius Hkkjrh; laLd`fr
vkSj Hkkjrh; fof/k esa fookg ds fy, ,d tSfod
ifr vkSj tSfod iRuh dk gksuk vfuok;Z crk;k
x;k gS vkSj muds fookg dks gh ekU;rk iznku dh
x;h gSA mDr ds vHkko esa leySfxad fookg dks
ekU;rk iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd blesa
L=h iq:"k dk vHkko gS vkSj u gh os larku mRiUu
dj ldrs gSaA fgUnw fof/k esa fookg dks egRoiw.kZ
ekuk x;k gS ftlds vUrxZr L=h vkSj iq:"k nksuksa
,d lkFk jgdj larku mRiUu djds ekuo J`a[kyk
dks vkxs c<+krs gSaA

9. vkxs ;g Hkh dgk x;k fd ;kph dq0 usgk
pUnzk rFkk foi{kh la[;k 4 dq0 latuk dh ;kpuk
ftlesa mUgksaus vius leySfxad fookg dks ekU;rk
iznku djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k gS ;fn mls Lohdkj
dj fy;k tk, rks ;g Hkkjrh; laLd`fr] /keZ ,oa
Hkkjrh; fof/k ds vuqlkj vekU; gksxk vkSj ,slk
gksus ij Hkkjro"kZ ds fofHkUu dkuwuksa esa bldk
izfrdwy izHkko iMs+xk ftls L=h ,oa iq:"k dks /;ku
esa j[kdj cuk;k x;k gSA

10. mijksDr lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa
j[krs gq, ;kph dq0 usgk pUnzk ds leySfxad
fookg ds vuqjks/k dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA

11. mijksDr fVIi.kh ds lkFk ;g cUnh
izR;{khdj.k ;kfpdk vfUre :i ls fuLrkfjr dh
tkrh gSA
----------
(2022)05ILR A1463
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 80 of 2022

Ram Vilas & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Letter Petition

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

The Constitution of India 1950 - Article
14,19,21 & 22 -Petitioners were called at police
Station-were
detained
and
threatened-their
daughter filed Letter Petition-entertained by
Court-oral summoning and subsequent detention
resorted without lodging of FIR-action of Police
personnel -clear flouting of right under Article
14,19,21 and 22 of the Constitution. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. A.K. Gopalan Vs St. of Mad., A.I.R. 1950
Supreme Court 27

2. Kharak Singh Vs St. of U.P., A.I.R. 1963
Supreme Court 1295

3. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs U.O.I., 1970, 1
SCC 248

4. National Legal Services Authority Vs U.O.I.,
2014 (5) SCC 438

5. K.S. Putta Swamy Vs U.O.I., 2017 (10) SCC 1
1464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.
&
Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Learned A.G.A. has filed short
counter affidavit, the same is taken on
record.

2. Heard Mr. Shyamendra Singh
learned counsel for the petitioner whose
power is taken on record, Mr. S.P. Singh
learned Additional Government Advocate
and perused the material brought on record
of this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition.

3. Pursuant to our previous order
passed on 8th April, 2022, treating the
Letter Petition filed by daughter of
petitioners to be a Habeas Corpus Petition,
certain facts were brought to the notice of
this Court on point that the petitioners
namely, Savitri and Ram Vilas have been
called at Police Station- Mahila Thana,
Lucknow, from where they have not
returned as yet. The petition after being
treated as Habeas Corpus was heard by us,
wherein, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the
State brought to our notice the fact that no
such occurrence took place at the police
station as stated.

4. Today petitioners Savitri and Ram
Vilas are present before this Court along
with their daughter Sorojini duly identified
by their counsel and it was informed by the
petitioners that some police personnel came
to them and required their presence at the
police station. Pursuant thereto, petitioners
went to the police station where they were
allegedly detained and threatened by some
police personnel.

5. In the short counter affidavit sworn
by Ms. Durgawati posted as Inspector,
Mahila Thana, Lucknow who is also
personally present in Court, certain facts
have been brought to the notice of this
Court that petitioners had visited the police
station on 08.04.2022 around 12 noon and
after recording their statements were
allowed to leave the police station at
around 3.30 p.m., the same day. The
dispute between the complainant- Smt.
Sushma
Devi
and
her
in-laws
i.e.
petitioners pertains to partition of ancestral
property. Complainant's husband- Vinay
Kumar who is the son of Ram Vilas is also
supporting his wife and claiming his share
in the ancestral property.

6.

Deponent
Durgavati
seeks
unconditional apology for inconvenience
caused to the Court for the mistake
committed while providing information the
Court on 8.4.2022, when this petition was
listed on a short notice. The mistake
committed was not intentional or deliberate
but
due
to
carelessness
and
insubordination
of
Head
Constable
No.1681Shailendra Singh who had not
informed the deponent Durgavati that he
had summoned Sri Ram Vilas and his wife
Savitri. The deponent Durgavati has sent a
report to Deputy commissioner of Police
(Central),
District
Lucknow,
Commissionerate
to
take
appropriate
disciplinary action against him, copy
whereof has been annexed as Annexure
No.3 to this affidavit.

7. It has been stated by deponent
Durgavati that there was no deliberate
attempt
to
humiliate
or
harass
the
petitioners but it was misconduct and insubordination of the Constable concerned
otherwise there was no cause for the police
to have indulged in any maltreatment of
petitioners. In future the police shall be
mindful of their activities.
5 All. Ram Vilas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1465

8. In such case we after deliberation
express unhesitatingly that there appears to
be someone amongst the police personnel
who fished in troubled waters and took
advantage of the situation both to the
detriment of private parties as well as to the
working efficiency of the police system and
in particular the police station concerned. It
is incumbent and obligatory upon the
police authorities concerned to nip the
mischief in its bud.

9. The right of a citizen not to be
detained or restrained by the State or its
instrumentalities without the backing of
any law is fundamental as reflected in
Articles 19(1)(d), 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(d)
protects rights of citizens to move freely
throughout the territory of India with sub
section 5 imposing reasonable restrictions
either in the interest of general public or for
protection of interest of any scheduled
tribe. Article 21 relates to protection of life
and personal
liberty
of
any
person
including non citizens. Article 22 of the
Constitution inheres protection against
arrest and detention in certain cases.

10. As far back as 1950, His Lordship
Hon'ble Justice Fazl Ali in the case of A.K.
Gopalan versus State of Madrass, A.I.R.
1950 Supreme Court 27 in his dissenting
judgment has held that there is no antithesis
between
words
'restriction'
and
'deprivation'. It was held that restraint on
the right to move can assume a variety of
forms and restriction would be the most
appropriate expression to be used in Clause
(v) so as to cover all those forms ranging
from total to various kinds of partial
deprivation of freedom of movement. It
was also held that the penal code does not
primarily or necessarily impose restrictions
on the freedom of movement and it is
incorrect to say that it is a law imposing
restrictions on the right to move freely. In
fact the primary object of code was held to
punish crime and not to restrict movement.
His Lordship further held that punitive
detention is essentially different from
preventive detention and a person can be
punitively detained only after a trial for
committing a crime and after his guilt has
been established in a competent court of
jurisdiction
whereafter
a
person
so
convicted can raise appeal thereagainst and
the final judgment would constitute a
reasonable restriction which may not
follow the right under Article 19(1)(d).
However a person who is punitively
detained does not require to face any such
obstacle.

11. It was held that the expressions
'personal liberty' and 'personal freedom'
have a wider and a narrower meaning. In
the wider sense they include not only
immunity from arrest and detention but
also freedom of speech, freedom of
association etc while in the narrower sense,
they mean immunity from arrest and
detention. The concept of personal liberty
was used not only in the sense of immunity
from arrest but also that it consisted in
freedom of movement and locomotion.

12. However with regard to interplay
between various articles pertaining to
fundamental rights, the majority view in the
case of A.K. Gopalan (supra) was that they
were distinct and separate without any
overlapping and thus the views of Fazl Ali
J. remained a minority view.

13. The said aspect was again
considered by the Supreme Court in the case
of Kharak Singh versus State of U.P.,
A.I.R. 1963 Supreme Court 1295 in which
the majority view of A.K. Gopalan (supra)
1466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was confirmed with the dissenting view being
taken by His Lordship, Hon'ble Justice Subba
Rao who followed the minority view in the
case of A.K. Gopalan (supra) while holding
that rights conferred by part (III) of the
Constitution have overlapping areas and
where a law or State action is challenged as
infringing rights in different Articles of part
(III), the State must satisfy the test of each
Article individually. It was held that the
expression
'personal
liberty'
is
a
comprehensive one and the right to move
freely is an attribute of 'personal liberty'. It
was held that the rights indicated in Articles
19 and 21 of Constitution were independent
fundamental
rights,
though
there
was
overlapping and as such there was no
question of one being carved out of another.
It was further held that in case a person's
fundamental right under Article 21 was
infringed, the State could only rely upon a
law to sustain the action but the same would
be required to satisfy the tests laid down in
Article 19 as well. It was also held that the
right of personal liberty takes in not only a
right to be free from restriction placed on a
person's movements but should also be free
from encroachments on his private life.

14. The minority views in the cases of
A.K.
Gopalan
(supra)
and
Kharak
Singh(supra) were thereafter upheld in the
subsequent constitution bench judgment by
the Supreme Court in the case of Rustom
Cavasjee Cooper versus Union of India,
1970, 1 SCC 248.

15. Subsequently in the case of
National Legal Services Authority versus
Union of India, 2014 (5) SCC 438,
examining the ambit of Article 21, the
Supreme Court held as follows:-

"
73.
Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India reads as follows:

"21.Protection
of
life
and
personal liberty.?No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established
by law."

Article 21 is the heart and soul of
the Indian Constitution, which speaks of the
rights to life and personal liberty. Right to
life is one of the basic fundamental rights
and not even the State has the authority to
violate or take away that right. Article 21
takes all those aspects of life which go to
make a person's life meaningful. Article 21
protects the dignity of human life, one's
personal autonomy, one's right to privacy,
etc. Right to dignity has been recognised to
be an essential part of the right to life and
accrues to all persons on account of being
humans. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of
Delhi [(1981) 1 SCC 608 : 1981 SCC (Cri)
212] (SCC pp. 618-19, paras 7 and 8), this
Court held that the right to dignity forms
an essential part of our constitutional
culture which seeks to ensure the full
development and evolution of persons and
includes "expressing oneself in diverse
forms, freely moving about and mixing and
comingling with fellow human beings".

*** ****
******

75.
Article
21,
as
already
indicated, guarantees the protection of
"personal autonomy" of an individual. In
Anuj Garg v. Hotel Assn. of India [(2008) 3
SCC 1] (SCC p. 15, paras 34-35), this
Court
held
that
personal
autonomy
includes both the negative right of not to be
subject to interference by others and the
positive right of individuals to make
decisions about their life, to express
themselves and to choose which activities
to take part in. Self-determination of
gender is an integral part of personal
autonomy and self-expression and falls
within the realm of personal liberty
5 All. Ram Vilas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1467
guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. "

16. As such it was held that Article 21
protects
the
basic
fundamental
right
pertaining to dignity of human life and
personal liberty.

17. In the case of K.S. Putta Swamy
versus Union of India, 2017 (10) SCC 1,
it has been held as follows:-

"119. To live is to live with
dignity. The draftsmen of the Constitution
defined their vision of the society in which
constitutional values would be attained by
emphasising, among other freedoms, liberty
and dignity. So fundamental is dignity that
it permeates the core of the rights
guaranteed to the individual by Part III.
Dignity is the core which unites the
fundamental
rights
because
the
fundamental rights seek to achieve for each
individual the dignity of existence. Privacy
with its attendant values assures dignity to
the individual and it is only when life can
be enjoyed with dignity can liberty be of
true
substance.
Privacy
ensures
the
fulfilment of dignity and is a core value
which the protection of life and liberty is
intended to achieve."

18. The conjoint reading of aforesaid
clearly indicates the consistent view taken by
the Supreme Court that right to live with
dignity is an essential part of right to life
envisaged under Article 21 of Constitution of
India since such a right coupled with the right
to privacy ensures the fulfilment of core
values which the protection of life and liberty
is intended to achieve. The Supreme Court in
the case of K.S. Putta Swamy (supra) has also
held
that
the
freedoms
and
liberties
guaranteed under Article 21 has been
interpreted to mean that life does not mean
merely a physical existence and in fact
includes all those faculties by which life is
enjoyed. The ambit of 'procedure established
by law' under Article 21 has been interpreted
to mean that the procedure placing restriction
on such rights must be fair, just and
reasonable and the coalescence of Articles 14,
19 and 21 recognizes the interrelationship
between rights guaranteed under the said
Articles and such requirements of fairness
and non discrimination animate both the
substantive and procedural aspects of Article
21. It has been held that any law or State
action impacting life or personal liberty has to
be assessed not with reference to its object
but on the basis of its effect and impact on
fundamental rights.

19. The observations of Fazl Ali J. in
the case of A.K. Gopalan (supra) to the effect
that Article 21 purports to protect life and
personal liberty and it would be a precarious
protection and a protection not worth having
if the elementary principle of law pertaining
to fundamental rights is to be ignored and
excluded is quite apposite in the present
context. In the case of K.S. Putta Swamy
(supra) the Supreme Court interpreting
Article 21 in the context of various judgments
has held as follows:-

283. .....Protection of life and
personal
liberty.No
person
shall
be
deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established
by law.'

If this Article is expanded in
accordance with the interpretative principle
indicated in Maneka Gandhi [Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC
248] , it will read as follows:

'No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according
to fair, just and reasonable procedure
established by valid law.'
1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In the converse positive form, the
expanded Article will read as below:

'A person may be deprived of his
life or personal liberty in accordance with
fair,
just
and
reasonable
procedure
established by valid law.' "

20. In the case of K.S, Putta Swamy
(supra) it has been held that when validity
of law or State action is questioned on the
ground
that
it
violates
a
guarantee
contained under Article 21, the scope of
challenge is not confined only to whether
the procedure for deprivation of life or
personal liberty is fair, just and reasonable
but
expands
to
the
interrelationship
between
the
guarantees
against
arbitrariness and the protection of life and
personal liberty which operates in a
facilitated plane since the procedure for
deprivation
must
be
fair,
just
and
reasonable since Article 14 impacts both
the procedure and the expression law.

21. The Supreme Court in the case of
K.S. Putta Swamy (supra) has indicated
three requirements which are to be fulfilled
in order to keep the restraints imposed upon
a person, within the ambit of fundamental
rights. It has been held that the first
requirement for imposing such a restraint
must be based on a law in existence to
justify any such encroachment on the
express rights of Article 21. It has been
held that existence of law is an essential
requirement for imposing restrictions on
rights which are guaranteed under part (III)
of the Constitution.

22. Secondly the requirement that
such State action or law which imposes
restriction
falls
within
the
zone
of
reasonableness mandated by Article 14,
which is a guarantee against arbitrary State
action.

23. Thirdly that the requirement
imposing restriction ensures that the means
adopted are proportional to the object
sought to be achieved since proportionality
is an essential facet of the guarantee against
arbitrary State action.

24. The concept of life and personal
liberty as envisaged under Article 21 have
been interpreted in the case of K.S. Putta
Swamy (supra) as follows:-

"318. Life and personal liberty
are inalienable rights. These are rights
which are inseparable from a dignified
human existence. The dignity of the
individual, equality between human beings
and
the
quest
for
liberty
are
the
foundational
pillars
of
the
Indian
Constitution.

319. Life and personal liberty are
not creations of the Constitution. These
rights are recognised by the Constitution as
inhering in each individual as an intrinsic
and inseparable part of the human element
which dwells within."

25. Upon examination of the aforesaid
pronouncements by the Supreme Court, it
is apparent that the guarantees envisaged
by the Constitution of India in part (III)
can be restricted or controlled only in
accordance with provisions of aforesaid
Articles constituted in part (III) itself. As
such the power of locomotion is an
essential element of personal liberty and
detention in jail or in a police station is a
drastic invasion of that liberty as held by
Patanjali Sashtri J. in the case of A.K.
Gopalan (supra).

26. The code of criminal procedure
also prescribes the manner and procedure
under which an investigation is to ensue
subsequent
to
lodging
of
complaint.
5 All. Ram Vilas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1469
However there is no provision in either the
constitution of India or even under the code
of criminal procedure which prescribes a
police official to summon and detain the
person even without lodging of first
information report and that too orally. Any
such act by police personnel has to be seen
in the context of right to personal liberty as
envisaged under Article 21 and necessarily
stipulates that a procedure which is fair,
just and reasonable is required to be
followed so that it does not encroach upon
the life and personal liberty guaranteed
under
Articles
21
and
22
of
the
Constitution.

27. As has already been held that
invasion of life or personal liberty must be
based on a valid law defined in terms of
legitimate state and should be proportional
to ensure a rational nexus between the
object and means to achieve it.

28. The action taken by police
personnel in the present case indicates clear
flouting of the right guaranteed to the
petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22
of the Constitution since oral summoning
of the petitioners and their subsequent
detention in police station has been resorted
to without even lodging of first information
report.

29. The State in its counter affidavit
has not been able to explain any law under
which such a procedure could have been
followed particularly when the police
personnel summoning the petitioners was
not even the investigating officer of the
case.

30. Right of locomotion being an
essential part of right to life and personal
liberty can not be trifled with in such a
casual manner merely being clothed with
State authority. It is the bounden duty of
State and its instrumentalities to be ever
vigilant
so
that
fundamental
rights
guaranteed
under
part
(III)
of
the
Constitution are not infringed, particularly
without any authority of valid law which
would have a deleterious effect on an
ordered society.

31. In view of aforesaid, it would be
necessary to direct the State and its
instrumentalities
that
in
case
any
application or complaint is given at any
police station which requires investigation
and presence of the accused then suitable
course of action as prescribed under
provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are
to be followed which contemplate a written
notice being served upon such a person but
that too only consequent to a case being
registered. In case there is no investigating
officer at that juncture, the subordinate
police officials are required to take
permission/approval of the station incharge
before issuing such notice or summons. On
no account can an accused or any other
person be summoned to a police station
orally by subordinate police officials
without the consent/approval of the station
incharge. The life, liberty and dignity of
any person can not be thrown to the winds
merely on verbal orders of police officials.
It
is
expected
that
State
and
its
instrumentalities will be cautious in future
with regard to observations and directions
issued herein above.

32. With the aforesaid observations,
this petition for habeas corpus is finally
disposed of.

33. Registry is directed to send a copy
of this order to the Additional Chief
Secretary, Department of Home, State of
U.P. for taking appropriate action for
1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ensuring compliance of aforesaid directions
by the police.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1470
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 627 of 2020

Mahant Dharmendra Das ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mohiuddin Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Nadeem Murtaza, Rupendra Kumar
Singh, Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 145 -
Opposite party in peaceful possession-over
disputed land since 2006-presently legal
title in his favour-which is never disturbed
by any Civil Court-Revisional Court heldproceedings
u/s
145
Cr.P.C.

not
maintainable-as title and possession is
settled
in
favour
of
opposite
partyImpugned order upheld.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramabai Govind Vs Raghunath Vasudeo AIR
1952 Bombay 106

2. Misrilal Raidani Vs Netaichand Nandi AIR
1934 Calcutta 372

3. Bhinka & ors. Vs Charan Singh AIR 1959 SC
960

4. Civil Appeal No. 3007-3008 of 2017
(Prabhakar Adiga Vs Gowri & ors.)
5. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
AIR 1985 SC 47

6. Ganesh Prasad & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & 4
others
(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Shri Mohiuddin Khan,
learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Rupendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the respondent.

2. This petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the
judgment and order dated 13.12.2019
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Court No.7, Lucknow in Criminal Revision
No. 674 of 2019(Bharat Singh Vs. State of
U.P.
and
another)
and
order
dated
18.10.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow in
case no. 10190 of 2019 (Computerized No.
T201910460410190) (Dharmendra Das Vs.
Bharat Singh).

3. Submission of the learned counsel
for the applicant is that land bearing Gata
No. 259 area 6.7660 hectare, Khasra No.
333 area 1.1320 hectare and Khasra No.
406 Ga area 0.9780 hectare situated in
village- Aldampur, P.S. Itaunja District-
Luknow originally belongs to Thakur Ji
Maharaj
Trust,
Udaseen
Sangat,
Guruduwara, Nanak Shahi, Purani Sabji
Mandi Chowk Lucknow ( hereinafter
referred to as "Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust")
and the opposite party no. 2 is claiming to
have purchased the disputed land from Shri
Mahant Bharat Das through sale deed dated
17.7.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that due to lack of management of
the properties situated at village-Adlampur