Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.23 OF 2011
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.144/2010]
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 )