Case Details

SEMUAL PAUL AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. MINISTRY OF HOME, U.P. LKW. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement

Semual Paul And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Ministry Of Home, U.P. Lkw. & Ors. - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 15835 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 70 (2 January 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15835 of 2006

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

The petitioners are accused in Case Crime No. 623380600 C-3 of 2006 of P.S. Mutthiganj district Allahabad. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the complainant of that First Information Report, respondent No. 4 in this writ petition, was a tenant of House No. 557 and that house is covered by the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972, and has been allotted under that Act to the complainant. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the house was sold by the owner through the attorney (petitioner No. 2) and the new owner with the assistance of the attorney (petitioner No. 2) and other accused including the petitioner No. 1, who is the brother-in-law of the seller forcibly evicted the petitioner from the house.

During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent No. 4 was the tenant in that House No. 557, and that the house which is an old house was covered by the Rent Control Act. Learned counsel also conceded that presently the person to whom the petitioner No. 2 has sold the house is in possession of the house.

It has not been disclosed in the writ petition as to when and how the purchaser obtained possession of that house and why an old tenant (complainant), protected by the Rent Control Act, should have vacated the house.

Cases of house grabbing are required to be dealt with seriously not only by the Courts but also by the Executive Authorities including the police in order to discourage such tendencies.

We, therefore, decline to quash the First Information Report or to stay the arrest of the petitioners.

We further direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, to personally monitor the investigation and to ensure that the investigation is done not only properly and thoroughly but also quickly and to take such action against the guilty persons as may be necessary in the light of the facts found. If it is found as a result of the investigation that the complainant has been thrown out of the house by the strong arm tactics, it will be open to the police to put the complainant back in possession on the same principles on which stolen or robbed property is returned to the rightful owner.

Learned A.G.A., is directed to communicate this order to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, by messenger within 48 hours.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.'

A copy of this order may be given to the Government Advocate free of charge by the Office by 4th January 2007.

Dated: January 2, 2007

SKS/AM/-

Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Case Details

Case Law Search

Judgement

Copyright

Advertisement