Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10367 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girraj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3; and perused the record.
The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent filed a complaint against respondents 5 to 7 under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in which a protection order dated 28.01.2020 was passed restraining the opposite parties of that proceeding from evicting the applicant of that proceeding.
It is the case of the petitioner that Vimla Devi (respondent no.6) who was an opposite party in the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act had, before passing of the protection order, sold the property in dispute to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner applied under Section 25(2) of the Domestic Violence Act for protection against illegal dispossession from the accommodation and for rescinding the order dated 28.01.2020.
It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.12.2020 the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikohabad passed a fresh order requiring the fourth respondent to submit a fresh description of the shared household.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent has filed an objection and has not given possession to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has requested the District Administration to evict the fourth respondent and to put the petitioner in possession. It is for deciding this application, which is in the form of an affidavit and has been marked as annexure 2, a direction is sought by the petitioner.
We have perused the record.
There is nothing on record to indicate that any order has been passed by any Court or the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned directing eviction of the fourth respondent from the disputed property. There is also no order of any court protecting the possession of the petitioner over the disputed property.
Interestingly, Annexure No.2 of which decision is sought is not an application of the petitioner but an affidavit of Vimla Devi (sixth respondent) filed before competent authority. In paragraph 3 of that affidavit it is stated that her daughter-in-law Shikha Yadav (fourth respondent) is in possession of the property which she has sold to the petitioner.
Under these circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Firozabad to evict the fourth respondent cannot be accepted, at this stage.
The petitioner may obtain possession by taking recourse to appropriate legal proceeding, as may be advised to her.
Subject to above, the petition is disposed off. Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Sunil Kr Tiwari