JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This petition reveals a startling state of affairs where acts of wanton behaviour committed by persons in high authority accused of gross criminal assault and trespass are not only not punished but are rewarded with conferment of rights by authorities.
2. This petition was filed nearly four years ago. On 26.4.1999 this Court granted standing counsel one month to file counter-affidavit. By that order notice was also issued to respondent Nos. 5 to 8 returnable at an early date. On 10.5.1999 registered A.D. notices were issued to respondent Nos. 5 to 8 fixing 28.5.1999. There is an office report dated 16.7.1999, which states that in compliance to the Court order dated 26.4.1999 notices were issued to the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 by registered A.D. post fixing 28.5.1999. Neither the acknowledgment nor undelivered cover has been received back after service. The same is the office report dated 22.8.1999. The Court then ordered on 24.8.2000 the notices to be published through publication in two news papers Dainik Jagran and Rastriya Sahara, and they were published accordingly. Yet no counter-affidavit has been filed.
3. In view of Explanation II of Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules service of the notice is deemed to be sufficient on the respondent Nos. 5 to 8. No counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents. No counsel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Hence, we are treating the allegations in the petition to be correct.
4. The petitioner is an old lady of 90 years of age and the land in question is in the jurisdiction of Municipal Board of Gorakhpur as stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The aforesaid land was lease land. The lease was originally granted to Babu Shyama Charan by means of lease deed dated 26.4.1910 by the Collector, Gorakhpur vide Annexure-1 to the petition. In paragraph 2 of the petition it is mentioned that by a lease deed dated 3.5.1951 it was leased out by the grandson of Babu Shyam Charan to one Imtiaz Hussain for 99 years with right of renewal of the lease. A true copy of the lease deed dated 3.5.1951 is Annexure-2 to the petition. The said Imtiaz Hussain transferred the lease rights to the petitioner by sale deed dated 27.9.1994 vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition and since then the petitioner has been in lawful possession of the aforesaid land.
5. In paragraph 5 of the petition it is alleged that respondent No. 8 Amar Mani Trlpathi and his brother Ajit Mani Tripathi respondent No. 6 and one Yudhishthir Dhar Dubey respondent No. 7 who have no right in the aforesaid land and are notorious goondas wanted to grab the land. (It may be mentioned that Shri Amar Mani Tripathi is a Minister in the U. P. Government). It is further alleged in paragraph 5 of the petition that Amar Mani Tripathi assaulted the petitioner's son Parash Nath Gupta and the petitioner's servant in the year 1994 and threatened to grab the land. A first information report dated 11.10.1994 has been lodged against them in this connection vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition. However, no action whatsoever has been taken on the basis of the said first information report against these persons. Thereupon Amar Mani Tripathi and Yudhishthir Dubey devised another method for grabbing the property by getting the land converted into free hold in the names of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. None of them has any right, title or interest in the said land, yet by sheer abuse of power as a Minister, Amar Mani Tripathi secured an order dated 11.1.1999 declaring the land to be free hold of Ajit Mani Tripathi and Yudhishthir Dhar Dubey. True copies of the declarations are Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition.
6. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is stated that the aforesaid declarations deliberately contain a false recital contrary to the above, with a view to supporting Amar Mani Tripathi. It is further stated therein that a patta dated 5.5.1951 has been executed between the Governor and one Tirath Chand. It is further recited therein that the said patta has been recorded in bahi sankhya 1, zild sankhya 828 at pages 95 to 98 and vilekh sankhya 416 maintained by the office of the Sub-Registrar. The true fact is that a patta dated 3.5.1951 was executed between the lessor and aforesaid Imtiaz Hussain which is recorded in the office of the Sub-Registrar in bahi sankhya 1, zila sankhya 828 at page No. 95 to 98. The petitioner has annexed copy of the lease deed dated 3.5.1951, Annexure-2 to the petition along with several copies of the documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar.
7. After getting surreptitious declaration of free-hold rights in favour of Ajit Mani Tripathi and Yudhishthir Dhar Dubey, they forcibly and unlawfully trespassed over the land on 27.3.1999, as stated in para 8 of the petition. It is stated that Kailash Naik who was in actual physical possession of the land on the basis of the interim order dated 3.3.1997 passed in Second Appeal No. 180 of 1997 was intimidated and was thrown out of the said land. The brother of Kailash Naik sent telegrams to various authorities including D.I.G., S.S.P. and Station House Officer but no action has been taken against respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8. It may be mentioned that Imtiaz Hussain had filed a suit against the tenant Kailash Naik for eviction which was decreed by both the courts below, but in Second Appeal an interim order was passed in favour of Kailash Naik by this Court. Despite this order he was evicted by the respondents forcibly. True copy of the telegram is Annexure-10 and the receipt of the telegram is Annexure-11 to the writ petition. It is stated that the news about the sending of the telegram was published in various newspapers. True copy of the said publication is Annexure-12 to the writ petition. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is alleged that there is collusion between those respondents and the district authorities arrayed in the writ petition as respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and we are inclined to believe this averment.
8. Since more than four years have elapsed and no counter-affidavit has been filed either by the official respondents or even by the respondent Nos. 6. 7 and 8, we are entitled to assume that the fads stated in the petition are true and correct. From a perusal of those facts, it is plain that the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 have grabbed the property in question by taking resort to criminal activities such as criminal trespass and criminal assault with the aid and assistance, if not collusion, of the district authorities. Such wanton "activities are on the increase day-by-day giving rise to persistent public outcry bemoaning what is commonly known as criminalisation of politics and public life. It is sad that far from nipping such a phenomenon in the bud, the said authorities are encouraging or aiding and abetting such criminal activities, more often than not to carry favour with the legislators or Ministers.
9. The present seems to be a typical instance of such criminal activity committed and perpetrated against helpless citizens with the assistance of the district authorities who are even willing to lend their hands to the Ministers and legislators where the interest of such Ministers and legislators are concerned.
10. Illegal house grabbing is a phenomenon with which this Court has had occasion to step in and strike down with strong hands wherever the Court has come across such illegal activities, vide Chetna Atma Govil v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Writ Petition No. 5756 of 1995 decided on 9.5.1995 ; Ram Kumar Agarwal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Writ Petition No, 41457 of 1994, decided on 28.4.1994, N.P. Kulshreshtha v. State of V. P., 1996 AWC 1052, etc.
11. Further if such house grabbing is allowed, no one will be safe in his house. In this case respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have resorted to the mala fide device of getting the property declared freehold in their names, in connivance with respondent No. 8 and the district authorities. They then forcibly took possession of the house, as stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. Taking possession of the property forcibly is illegal, as held by this Court in Santosh Kumar Anand v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, 1994 (24) ALR 162.
12. We fail to understand how freehold rights in the land could be granted in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 when they had no right, title or interest in the property. They were neither lessees nor occupiers of the said land when it was converted into freehold. The declaration, copies of which are Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition are, therefore illegal.
13. Before concluding, we are constrained to remind everyone that ours is a democratic form of Government under the Constitution and that such wanton behaviour cannot be countenanced as it would result in the complete negation and perversion of democracy and the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution. In fact such wanton acts, if not dealt with promptly and curbed with strong hands, would belie the very hopes and aspirations of our Founding Fathers.
14. In the result, this petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent Nos. 6,7 and 8 to immediately restore the possession of the house in question to the petitioner. The declarations, copies of which are Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition are quashed. The D.M. and S.S.P., Gorakhpur are directed to ensure that possession of the house in question is restored to the petitioner forthwith as soon as a certified copy of this order is produced before them. Shri Amar Mani Tripathi is directed to pay a sum of Rs. one lac to the petitioner, as compensation for the harassment he has caused, which sum will be recovered as land revenue by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, from Shri Tripathi forthwith and paid to the petitioner.