Smt. Sushma Jain vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

3. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs: "i) Issue an order or direction setting aside order dated

30.8.2024 passed by the respondent no.2/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nakur Saharanpur in Criminal Case No. 4224 of 2023 titled State Vs. Ankit Jain under section 133 Cr.P.C. ii) Issue an order or direction setting aside the order dated

5.6.2025 passed by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 14 Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 469 of 2024 titled Sushma Jain Vs. State of U.P."

4. The case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 5 who claimed to be the adopted son of the father of the petitioner 2 A227 No. 8425 of 2025 herein had filed a civil suit which was allegedly decreed on the basis of a compromise allegedly arrived at between the father of the petitioner and respondent no. 5, in which major portion of the property allegedly came into the share of the respondent no. 5 on the basis of the aforesaid compromise. Subsequent thereto after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner and other sisters of the petitioner filed a civil suit no. 615 of 2021 against the respondent no. 5 with the prayer of permanent injunction against the respondent no. 5 as well as setting aside the alleged compromise decree. In the said suit vide order dated 27.7.2022 an interim order of status quo with regard to the property in question was passed. The same was challenged by the respondent no. 5 and his son Abhinav Jain by filing a civil appeal no. 79 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.5.2024 modifying the interim order that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit no third party interest shall be created by the respondents. Against which a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being W.P. No. 14532 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner, which is pending and the civil suit is also still pending.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also disputed the adoption of the respondent no. 5 by the father of the petitioner. In the meantime, the respondent no. 4 filed a complaint before the S.D.M. alleging that the house in question is in dilapidated condition, therefore, the same may be demolished. On the said complaint notices were issued to the respondent no. 5. The submission is that the Magistrate noticed that with regard to the property in question a civil suit was filed and is pending despite that no notice has been issued to the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 admitted the position that the said house is in dilapidated house, therefore, the S.D.M. without issuing notices to the petitioner herein has directed for demolition of the said house against which a revision no. 469 of 2022 was filed, which has also been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 5.6.2025. 3 A227 No. 8425 of 2025

6. By way of a supplementary, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record the recent photographs of the property in question to justify that the same is occupied by various persons and the same is not in a dilapidated condition. It is further pertinent to note that various tenants of the said property have also filed civil suits against the respondent no. 5 and had obtained injunction order against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner has valuable interest in the property and the proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C. which has been concluded by the S.D.M. are vitiated by the principal of natural justice inasmuch as despite notice of the fact that the civil suit filed by the petitioner with regard to the property in question is pending even though no notice has ever been issued to the petitioner. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the S.D.M. and the revision court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the S.D.M. for passing a fresh order after giving due notice to the petitioner herein.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. on instructions submits that the adoption of the respondent no. 5 is disputed in court and admittedly the petitioner is the natural legal heir of the original owner of the property but no notice has ever been given to her before passing the impugned orders. Admittedly the petitioner has valuable interest over the property in question being the legal heir of original owner of the property.

8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties this court has carefully gone through the record of the case. Perusal of the record shows that admittedly the petitioner is the natural legal heir of the original owner of the property in question and has valuable interest over the property in question but without giving any notice to him, the impugned demolition order dated 30.8.2024 has been passed by the S.D.M. under section 133 Cr.P.C. which has also been affirmed by the revisional court vide the impugned order dated 4 A227 No. 8425 of 2025

5.6.2025. Both the courts have manifestly erred in law in passing the impugned orders inasmuch as even though the petitioner is the legal heir of the original owner of the property in question and has valuable interest over the property in question, no notice has ever been issued to him before passing the impugned orders.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated

30.8.2024 as well as the revisional order dated 5.6.2025 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the S.D.M., Tehsil Nakur District Saharanpur-respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned who have valuable interest over the property in question expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. September 19, 2025 o.k. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

3. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs: "i) Issue an order or direction setting aside order dated

30.8.2024 passed by the respondent no.2/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nakur Saharanpur in Criminal Case No. 4224 of 2023 titled State Vs. Ankit Jain under section 133 Cr.P.C. ii) Issue an order or direction setting aside the order dated

5.6.2025 passed by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 14 Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 469 of 2024 titled Sushma Jain Vs. State of U.P."

4. The case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 5 who claimed to be the adopted son of the father of the petitioner 2 A227 No. 8425 of 2025 herein had filed a civil suit which was allegedly decreed on the basis of a compromise allegedly arrived at between the father of the petitioner and respondent no. 5, in which major portion of the property allegedly came into the share of the respondent no. 5 on the basis of the aforesaid compromise. Subsequent thereto after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner and other sisters of the petitioner filed a civil suit no. 615 of 2021 against the respondent no. 5 with the prayer of permanent injunction against the respondent no. 5 as well as setting aside the alleged compromise decree. In the said suit vide order dated 27.7.2022 an interim order of status quo with regard to the property in question was passed. The same was challenged by the respondent no. 5 and his son Abhinav Jain by filing a civil appeal no. 79 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.5.2024 modifying the interim order that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit no third party interest shall be created by the respondents. Against which a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being W.P. No. 14532 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner, which is pending and the civil suit is also still pending.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also disputed the adoption of the respondent no. 5 by the father of the petitioner. In the meantime, the respondent no. 4 filed a complaint before the S.D.M. alleging that the house in question is in dilapidated condition, therefore, the same may be demolished. On the said complaint notices were issued to the respondent no. 5. The submission is that the Magistrate noticed that with regard to the property in question a civil suit was filed and is pending despite that no notice has been issued to the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 admitted the position that the said house is in dilapidated house, therefore, the S.D.M. without issuing notices to the petitioner herein has directed for demolition of the said house against which a revision no. 469 of 2022 was filed, which has also been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 5.6.2025. 3 A227 No. 8425 of 2025

6. By way of a supplementary, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record the recent photographs of the property in question to justify that the same is occupied by various persons and the same is not in a dilapidated condition. It is further pertinent to note that various tenants of the said property have also filed civil suits against the respondent no. 5 and had obtained injunction order against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner has valuable interest in the property and the proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C. which has been concluded by the S.D.M. are vitiated by the principal of natural justice inasmuch as despite notice of the fact that the civil suit filed by the petitioner with regard to the property in question is pending even though no notice has ever been issued to the petitioner. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the S.D.M. and the revision court be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the S.D.M. for passing a fresh order after giving due notice to the petitioner herein.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. on instructions submits that the adoption of the respondent no. 5 is disputed in court and admittedly the petitioner is the natural legal heir of the original owner of the property but no notice has ever been given to her before passing the impugned orders. Admittedly the petitioner has valuable interest over the property in question being the legal heir of original owner of the property.

8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties this court has carefully gone through the record of the case. Perusal of the record shows that admittedly the petitioner is the natural legal heir of the original owner of the property in question and has valuable interest over the property in question but without giving any notice to him, the impugned demolition order dated 30.8.2024 has been passed by the S.D.M. under section 133 Cr.P.C. which has also been affirmed by the revisional court vide the impugned order dated 4 A227 No. 8425 of 2025

5.6.2025. Both the courts have manifestly erred in law in passing the impugned orders inasmuch as even though the petitioner is the legal heir of the original owner of the property in question and has valuable interest over the property in question, no notice has ever been issued to him before passing the impugned orders.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders dated

30.8.2024 as well as the revisional order dated 5.6.2025 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the S.D.M., Tehsil Nakur District Saharanpur-respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned who have valuable interest over the property in question expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. September 19, 2025 o.k. (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad