The Allahabad High Court has ordered an immediate restoration of possession to a woman forcibly evicted from her ancestral home by a joint team of police and revenue officials. The Bench, comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Arun Kumar, termed the dispossession a “gross abuse of the process of law and the administrative powers of the State.”
The Court has referred the matter to the Chief Justice for initiating a disciplinary enquiry against the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bansi, Siddharth Nagar, observing that the judge acted with “undue haste” and “material irregularity.” Additionally, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on Respondent No. 8, a court employee, for the illegal dispossession and mental trauma caused to the petitioner and her minor children.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Soni, approached the High Court stating that she resided in her ancestral house in District Siddharth Nagar with her three minor children and ran a beauty parlour from a shop within the premises. The property originally belonged to her father-in-law, Gelhari, and upon his death, devolved upon his heirs, including the petitioner’s husband. The property remained undivided.
The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 8, Sandeep Gupta, a clerk in the District Court establishment, obtained a sale deed for a specific portion of the undivided house from the petitioner’s husband and his brother, who were allegedly under the influence of alcohol.
On January 27, 2025, Respondent No. 8 filed Original Suit No. 49 of 2025 seeking a permanent injunction and obtained an ex parte interim injunction on the same day. Subsequently, alleging dispossession, he filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC on February 5, 2025. The Trial Court allowed this application on the very same day, directing the police to ensure compliance with the earlier injunction.
Using these orders, a team of revenue and police officials forcibly evicted the petitioner and her children on July 18, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the administrative authorities had no jurisdiction to constitute a team to deliver possession based on a temporary prohibitory injunction. It was contended that Respondent No. 8 was never in actual physical possession of the undivided property. The petitioner submitted that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the Section 151 application without notice or enquiry.
Conversely, Respondent No. 8 claimed he was put in possession at the time of the sale deed. He alleged that the petitioner broke the locks twice, violating the court’s order. He relied on the Trial Court’s order dated February 5, 2025, and subsequent administrative orders to justify the restoration of possession.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The High Court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The Bench noted that the Trial Court granted the ex parte injunction without ensuring compliance with the mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
Regarding the order dated February 5, 2025, the High Court observed:
“The trial court, on the very same date, took up the application for consideration and allowed it ex parte. The undue haste with which the application was entertained and granted gives rise to a serious doubt regarding the propriety of the exercise undertaken by the trial court.”
The Court further stated that the Trial Court failed to record any finding that Respondent No. 8 was in possession on the date of the injunction or when the alleged dispossession occurred.
“This court is constrained to observe that the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, leaves it unclear as to whether such a course was adopted out of ignorance of law or for reasons extraneous thereto.”
The Bench also severely criticized the administrative authorities. The Court noted that the initial injunction was prohibitory, not mandatory, and did not authorize the administration to evict the petitioner.
“The Administrative Authorities have equally erred in constituting a revenue team for delivering possession to respondent No. 8 and in thereafter dispossessing the defendants, including the petitioner herein… It amounts to a gross abuse of the administrative powers and is wholly without jurisdiction.”
The Court rejected the reliance placed by the Trial Court on previous judgments, including Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs. Nikhil N. Gupta and Sree Ram Vs. State of U.P., noting that those cases required an opportunity of hearing, which was denied to the petitioner in this case.
Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition with the following directions:
- Restoration of Possession: Respondents No. 2 and 3 were directed to ensure possession is handed over to the petitioner within 48 hours.
- Disciplinary Action: The matter is to be placed before the Chief Justice for considering a disciplinary enquiry against the Civil Judge (Junior Division) who passed the order dated February 5, 2025.
- Action Against Court Employee: The matter regarding Respondent No. 8 is to be placed before the competent authority for appropriate action.
- Costs: Respondent No. 8 was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner within one week as compensation for illegal dispossession.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Soni Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others
- Case Number: WRIT-C No. 28263 of 2025
- Citation: 2026:AHC:23-DB
- Coram: Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Arun Kumar
