Bachchu Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors

Bachchu Singh .......Appellant

Versus

State of UP & Ors. .....Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. Agra Development Authority, the fourth respondent herein,

allotted a house to the sixth respondent and delivered

possession to her on 18.9.1986.

3. The sixth respondent filed a writ petition in the year

2003 alleging that the appellant herein had illegally occupied

the said house and, seeking a direction to the respondents 1

to 4 herein (State of UP, District Magistrate, Agra,

Superintendent of Police, Agra and the Agra Development

Authority) to evict the appellant from the house and deliver

vacant possession to her. The said writ petition was allowed

2

by Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by impugned

order dated 25.11.2009. The High Court has not considered

either the facts or the legal position. By a brief order, it

narrates the aforesaid grievance of the sixth respondent that

the appellant had trespassed into her house and consequently,

directs the Collector, Agra to look into the matter personally

and if the appellant herein is found to be a trespasser, to

"throw him out" from the house within a period of one month

provided there is no legal hurdle. The said order is

challenged by the appellant in this appeal by special leave.

4. The appellant alleges that the sixth respondent had

agreed to sell the said property in his favour in the year

1992 and in pursuance of the said agreement, had delivered

possession; that the sixth respondent did not perform the

contract and the appellant raised the dispute which was

referred to arbitration and the Arbitrator has made an award

dated 14.5.1996 which was made a rule of the Court on

29.1.1999; that the execution proceedings initiated by the

appellant for obtaining a sale deed in pursuance of such award

is pending; and that therefore, the question of High Court

issuing a direction to the Collector to evict him does not

arise.

3 5. The sixth respondent on the other hand contends that she

had not entered into any agreement of sale with the appellant

and alleges that she did not deliver possession to the

appellant. According to her, the appellant having forcibly

taken possession, has created documents to show an agreement

of sale and the award made is illegal and liable to be set

aside. Be that as it may.

6. If the appellant had illegally encroached or dispossessed

the sixth respondent, the appropriate course for the sixth

respondent was to file a suit or have recourse to such other

remedies as may be open to her in law. The fourth respondent

(the Agra Development Authority) having delivered possession

of the property to the sixth respondent on 18.8.1986, any

subsequent alleged dispossession of the sixth respondent by

any third party, will not give any cause of action for the

sixth respondent to seek a direction to either the Agra

Development Authority or the State Government or its

authorities to evict such person who allegedly dispossessed

the sixth respondent.

7. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed, the order

of the High Court is set aside, the writ petition is dismissed

without prejudice to the rights of the sixth respondent to

4

take such action as is available to her in law to secure

possession of the house, if she has been dispossessed

illegally.

.....................J.

( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi; ....................J.

January 03, 2011. ( A.K. PATNAIK )