Smt. Ilaichi Devi vs District Magistrate and Others

Binod Kumar Roy and D.R. Choudhary, JJ.—The Petitioner has come up with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish her House No. C/16/96 situate in mohalla Bettiah Hata. district Gorakhpur. The moot question is as to whether this writ petition should be admitted to adjudicate the Petitioner''s title? This writ petition was filed on 12.1.1999 and on a prayer made by the Petitioner on 13.1.1999, it was adjourned for 1 week and thereafter has been listed before us now.

She asserts, inter alia, that she is the legal owner of the house which consists 3 rooms, varandah, latrine, bathroom, etc. situated on the Bettiah Estate land in which she along with her family members has been residing since 50 years; a proceeding initiated u/s 145. Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of kothari (Room) was dropped by the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur vide his order dated 26.4.1979 (as contained in Annexure-1) ; after assessment she has been paying house tax, etc. to the Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur (receipt dated 24.1.1993 is Anncxure-2) ; her son also obtained electrical connection by depositing requisite amount of money in the Electricity Board on 16.4.1993 (deposit receipt Annexure-3) ; she was also issued ration card by the Area Rationing Officer, Gorakhpur on 14.2.1996; respondent Nos. 3 and 4 often came to her residence and threaten her to vacate the premises in order to build police station over the site and they are likely to take law in their Own hands ; she approached respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but no steps have been taken and hence this writ petition.

In the backdrop aforementioned, Sri S.K. Pandey holding brief of Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, contended that the reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner are fit to be granted and thus this case be admitted and/or allowed.

Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the claim and allegations are too vague to be accepted; no date has been disclosed of the alleged visit of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who have also not been impleaded by their name ; the allegation is also somewhat contradictory inasmuch as the prayer is to restrain the respondents from demolishing of her alleged house whereas the charge is of her forcible eviction ; this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be justified in deciding the alleged title of the Petitioner : and that consequently this writ petition be summarily dismissed.

It is well known that in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the question of title should not be decided. It is also well known that the properties of the Bettiah Estate were under the Court of Wards of Bihar and U.P. Jointly carrying on their management and that the rival claim made through different suits for the Bettiah Raj property reached the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh AIR 1983 SC 684 which were dismissed. The Petitioner has not disclosed as to how, when and which land she had purchased, on which her alleged house is standing. She has not even disclosed the plot number of the land. On her case set forth, her claim is of possessory title. The 145, Code of Criminal Procedure proceeding, initiated on 22.6.1977. in relation to a room in which the Petitioner was first party was dropped in 1979 as the second party was not present. Municipal Receipt of 1993 shows demand of latrine tax by the Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur. At best electricity was supplied in 1993, ration card was issued in 1996. All these do not support, the Petitioner''s claim of possession since 50 years.

In paragraph 7 she asserts that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 often come to her residence. No specific date has been mentioned by the Petitioner of their visit besides they have also not been impleaded in their personal capacity.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

This writ petition is consequently dismissed summarily.