High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Lavkush Panday Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. This petition has been filed with the prayer to restrain respondent nos. 5 & 6 from interfering with the peaceful harvesting of wheat crops of the petitioner standing over plot nos. 1022, 1025 and 800 of Khata No. 96 situated in Village Deori, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur.

2. Petitioner contends that respondent nos. 5 & 6 have no concern with the plot in question and that they are unauthorizedly interfering with the petitioner's possession.

3. Learned Standing Counsel raises an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that dispute between the parties raised in the present writ petition is purely a private dispute in respect of immovable property, for which the remedy would be to approach the competent Civil Court. A writ petition would not lie for such purposes, at the first instance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Commander N.P. Kulshreshtha and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1996 ALL.L.J. 1914, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as under:

5. A Division Bench of this Court in Waqf Alalaulad v. M/s. Sunderdas Daulatlram & Sons, Special Appeal No. 954 of 1995, decided on March 13, 1996, (reported in AIR 1996 All 355), 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 prop-erty by brazen 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 (at p 358 of AIR):- "But dispossessing 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 dispossessing 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 manhandling 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 ransem 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 tranquillity 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." This Court relying on Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 also held that the Government has the sovereign power of guardianship over the persons under disability and it its duty to protect them. In this connection it was held as under:- "The position of the Government being that of parent it has to act, intervene and protect lives, liberty and property of the people when threatened or invaded. Its duty is much greater in the case of a person under disability. A person is under disability.not.only when he suffers from physical or legal infirmities, but also when he is unable to stand up and protect his right and property from invasion by or with the help of anti social elements, Mafias and terrorists. In such a case it is not only duty of the Government to protect a person in distress and restore the possession of his property to him, but it is also the duty of this court, when approached, to pass appropriate orders and issue necessary directions to the Government to protect his life, liberty and property and, when found necessary, to restore him the possession of his property." This Court also relied upon the decision in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 JT (SC) 163: (1996 AIR SCW 1274) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as under (at p 1280 of AIR SCW):- "We are a country governed by the Rule of Law, our constitution confers certain rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, equal protection also, no person can be. deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit any body or group of persons e.g. the AAPSU to threaten the Chakmas to leave the State, failing which they would be forced to do So No. State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons. it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to be dealt with in accordance with law. The State Government must Act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well being of Chakmas residing in the State without being inhib ited by local politics." 6- This Court accordingly in the case of Waqf Allalaulad. (AIR 1996 All 35,5) (supra) laid down that a writ petition for protecting a person's property and liberty and even for restoration of possession of the property to the person who has been dispossessed by antı social elements by brute force, is maintainable. In this connection this Court has observed as under (at p 359 of AIR):- "When a person, who has been dispossessed from his property by brazen acts of lawlessness by or with the help of anti social elements, approaches this Court under Art. 226 of Constitution, this Court does not exercise its power to enforce the contractual and legal, obligations of the parties. It only directs the Government to enforce the Rule of Law and to protect the lives, liberty and the properties of the people and, if found necessary, to restore the possession of the property to the person who has been dispossessed therefrom, leaving it open to the parties to get their rights adjudicated through Civil Court. To tell a person whose property has been forcibly captured ) and seized by or with the help of anti social elements. to file a suit for its recovery and be on the streets till the suit is decided by the last Court, is nothing but slapping a person in distress."

5. So far as the observation made in N.P. Kulshreshtha (supra) is concerned, it was a case of house grabbing, where the owner of the property was a defence personnel and in his absence, his property was being grabbed by certain anti-social elements. In this particular case, the allegation is against private persons and it appears that there is a dispute with regard to title and possession over the property in question, which may require leading of evidence.

6. Such adjudication, at the very first instance, would be permissible before the competent Civil Court, which would be entitled to take evidence to come to a correct conclusion. In such circumstances, we are not persuaded to interfere in the writ petition. The question as to whether there is a title dispute or not, is also an aspect which would be open for examination before the Court concerned.

7. In such view of the matter, we decline to interfere with the present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed, with liberty stands reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Noman NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Lavkush Panday Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

1. This petition has been filed with the prayer to restrain respondent nos. 5 & 6 from interfering with the peaceful harvesting of wheat crops of the petitioner standing over plot nos. 1022, 1025 and 800 of Khata No. 96 situated in Village Deori, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur.

2. Petitioner contends that respondent nos. 5 & 6 have no concern with the plot in question and that they are unauthorizedly interfering with the petitioner's possession.

3. Learned Standing Counsel raises an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that dispute between the parties raised in the present writ petition is purely a private dispute in respect of immovable property, for which the remedy would be to approach the competent Civil Court. A writ petition would not lie for such purposes, at the first instance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Commander N.P. Kulshreshtha and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1996 ALL.L.J. 1914, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraphs 5 and 6 observed as under:

5. A Division Bench of this Court in Waqf Alalaulad v. M/s. Sunderdas Daulatlram & Sons, Special Appeal No. 954 of 1995, decided on March 13, 1996, (reported in AIR 1996 All 355), 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 prop-erty by brazen 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 (at p 358 of AIR):- "But dispossessing 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 dispossessing 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 manhandling 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 ransem 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 tranquillity 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." This Court relying on Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 also held that the Government has the sovereign power of guardianship over the persons under disability and it its duty to protect them. In this connection it was held as under:- "The position of the Government being that of parent it has to act, intervene and protect lives, liberty and property of the people when threatened or invaded. Its duty is much greater in the case of a person under disability. A person is under disability.not.only when he suffers from physical or legal infirmities, but also when he is unable to stand up and protect his right and property from invasion by or with the help of anti social elements, Mafias and terrorists. In such a case it is not only duty of the Government to protect a person in distress and restore the possession of his property to him, but it is also the duty of this court, when approached, to pass appropriate orders and issue necessary directions to the Government to protect his life, liberty and property and, when found necessary, to restore him the possession of his property." This Court also relied upon the decision in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, (1996) 1 JT (SC) 163: (1996 AIR SCW 1274) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as under (at p 1280 of AIR SCW):- "We are a country governed by the Rule of Law, our constitution confers certain rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, equal protection also, no person can be. deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit any body or group of persons e.g. the AAPSU to threaten the Chakmas to leave the State, failing which they would be forced to do So No. State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons. it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to be dealt with in accordance with law. The State Government must Act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well being of Chakmas residing in the State without being inhib ited by local politics." 6- This Court accordingly in the case of Waqf Allalaulad. (AIR 1996 All 35,5) (supra) laid down that a writ petition for protecting a person's property and liberty and even for restoration of possession of the property to the person who has been dispossessed by antı social elements by brute force, is maintainable. In this connection this Court has observed as under (at p 359 of AIR):- "When a person, who has been dispossessed from his property by brazen acts of lawlessness by or with the help of anti social elements, approaches this Court under Art. 226 of Constitution, this Court does not exercise its power to enforce the contractual and legal, obligations of the parties. It only directs the Government to enforce the Rule of Law and to protect the lives, liberty and the properties of the people and, if found necessary, to restore the possession of the property to the person who has been dispossessed therefrom, leaving it open to the parties to get their rights adjudicated through Civil Court. To tell a person whose property has been forcibly captured ) and seized by or with the help of anti social elements. to file a suit for its recovery and be on the streets till the suit is decided by the last Court, is nothing but slapping a person in distress."

5. So far as the observation made in N.P. Kulshreshtha (supra) is concerned, it was a case of house grabbing, where the owner of the property was a defence personnel and in his absence, his property was being grabbed by certain anti-social elements. In this particular case, the allegation is against private persons and it appears that there is a dispute with regard to title and possession over the property in question, which may require leading of evidence.

6. Such adjudication, at the very first instance, would be permissible before the competent Civil Court, which would be entitled to take evidence to come to a correct conclusion. In such circumstances, we are not persuaded to interfere in the writ petition. The question as to whether there is a title dispute or not, is also an aspect which would be open for examination before the Court concerned.

7. In such view of the matter, we decline to interfere with the present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed, with liberty stands reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Noman NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad