Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24782 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sant Nirankari Mandal
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Dayal Tiwari,M.D. Singh Shekhar (Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikash Chandra Tripathi,Vivek Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashwani Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3, Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the record.
2. This writ petition, inter alia, has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ order in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notice dated 05-07-2019 receive with the petitioner on 21-07-2019 and direct the respondents not take any action for dispossession and demolition of petitioner Sant Nirankari Bhawan, Krishna Nagar Kydganj, Allahabad be taken on the basis of aforesaid notice in the garb of judgment and order dated 16-11-2016 passed in First Appeal No.98 of 1998, Railway Electrification and others Versus Smt. Malti Devi and Others, (Annexure-12) to the writ petition.
(ii) issue writ order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents nos. 1 to 4 not harass and adopt coercive method against the petitioner in their peaceful possession in Sant Nirankari Bhawan situated Krishna Nagar, Kydganj, Allahabad (Prayagraj) and not to demolish the same.
(iii) issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass and demolish Sant Nirankari Bhawan, Krishna Nagar Kydganj, Allahabad (Prayagraj) without adopting legal process and proper survey n the basis of revenue record and settlement of the revenue Khatauni and revenue map (with the help of Jarib and Chain) in presence of respondent No. 4 and possession handed over taken by the respondents on 20-3-1950 giving proper opportunity of hearing.
(iv) issue writ order in nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass and demolish petitioner's Satsang Bhawan, Sant Nirankari Mandal, Krishna Nagar, Kydganj, Allahabad (Prayagraj) except in accordance with law."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is a registered body registered under the Societies Act, Act No.21 of 1860. The Society through his Secretary has purchased the house-in-question through registered sale deed dated 7.2.1979 executed by one Deepak Dua. Later on the mutation has also carried out in his name. The petitioner's society further purchased another property/house No.30A/1, New No.48, Krishna Nagar, Allahabad through registered sale deed dated 23.4.2007 from one Babu Suresh Chand. The petitioner further purchased the house in the same locality through registered sale deed dated 18.4.2015 from Deepak Agarwal and others after the purchase of the sale deed, petitioner's name has already been mutated in the records on Nagar Plika, Allahabad.
4. It was next submitted that after long lapse of time, the Respondent No. 4 filed Case No. 1353 of 1976 (State Vs. Girija Shankar), Case No. 1354 of 1976 (State Vs. Virendra Narain) and Case No. 1345 (State Vs. Triloki Nath Srivastava) under Section 4 of Public Premises Act, which was contested by petitioners by filing written statements and evidence. The state authority, Respondent No. 4 also gave its evidence and examined its one of the officers late Jagat Narian Jiledar on 3.3.1978. After hearing both the parties, the City Magistrate, Allahabad/Prescribed Authority, Allahabad recorded a finding that the petitioners against whom the proceeding under Public Premises was drawn up are the legal owners and are in authorized possession and consequently dismissed all the said cases by its order dated 13.3.1978. This order was never challenged by the respondents-authorities in any superior court, as such, it became final.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that one Chedi Lal filed a declaratory suit against the respondents which was decreed in his favour. The decree passed by court below was challenged by way of an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before this Court. Thereupon the Division Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 16.11.2016 allowed the First Appeal No. 98 of 1998 (Railway Electrification & another Vs. Smt. Malti Devi and others) filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.1997 and 11.11.1997 passed by the Ist Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad whereby the Original Suit No. 25 of 1988 was set aside and the same was dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further referred to the impugned notices dated 5.7.2019 which have been issued and pasted on the doors of the petitioners on 6.7.2019 whereby a direction was given to the petitioners to vacate the land of the railway otherwise they will be evicted by demolishing their houses by using coercive methods. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent No. 1 to 3 in collusion with the Respondent No. 4 under the garb of judgment passed in the First Appeal No.
98 of 1998 are threatening the petitioners to dispossess them from the property in question forcefully and further demolish their houses. He further submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the house from last many decades.. He further submitted that the judgment and order passed in First Appeal No. 98 of 1998, in fact, is not applicable/binding against the petitioners as they were neither a party in Suit No. 25 of 1988 or First Appeal No. 98 of 1988 nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them in the suit or the appeal. Therefore, the finding recorded in the appeal cannot be said to be binding upon the petitioners, as such, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the premises in dispute without due course of law. He further submitted that unless the matter is not adjudicated by a competent authority holding the petitioners to be trespassers, they cannot be evicted from the premises in dispute.
7. Per contra, Sri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 3 and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 have very fairly submitted that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises/land in dispute except in accordance with law.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel of the petitioners and also the statement made by Sri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 3 and Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we direct that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the disputed premises/land except in due course of law.
9. With this observation, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Rishabh