ILLAICHI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 most question is as to whether this writ petition should be ad mitted 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 fot. 1 week and thereafter has been listed before us now.

(2.) SHE asserts, inter alia, that she is the legal owner of the house which consists 3 rooms, verandah, latrine, bathroom etc. situated on the Bettiah Estate land in which she alongwith her family members has been residing since 50 years; a proceed ing initiated under Section 145 Cr. P. C. 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 Annexure-2); her son also obtained electrical connection by deposit ing requisite amount of money in the Electricity Board on 16-4-1993 (deposit receipt Annexurc-3); she was also issued Ration Card by the Area Rationing Of ficer, Gorakhpur on 14-2-1996; Respon dent Nos. 3 and 4 often come 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.

(3.) IT is well known that in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Con stitution 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 ofbiharv. 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 Cr. PC. proceeding, initiated on 22-6-1977, in rela tion 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 SOyears.