DIVINE FAITH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Akanksha Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5.

(2.) The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for complying with the orders dtd. 12/12/2022 and 17/4/2023 passed by the National Commission for Minorities, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission').

(3.) Petitioner-Divine Faith Fellowship Church, Sambhal claims to be a Non-governmental Organization (in short 'NGO'), which works for promotion and betterment of the Christian Community. Petitioners further claim that they have 17 shops around Church area, which is property of the Church. In one of the shops bearing Shop No. 13/1 some land grabbers have entered into possession illegally. Petitioners moved an application on 4/6/2022 before U.P. Commission for Minorities (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Commission') seeking direction upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for eviction of respondent No. 6, who according to the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant of the shop in question. The U.P. Commission considered this application as a civil case and issued notices to the government officers to appear before it. Accordingly, Nayab Tehsildar appeared before the U.P. Commission and submitted its report stating that Shop No. 13/1 was leased out by the Church to one Mr. Amit son of Satish Chandra and Kamal son of Kalyan Das, who is said to be the encroacher, was actually the partner of Amit, who was the tenant of the petitioner. Since, the Church wanted to throw out the tenant, a case of encroachment was set up against the partner of the tenant. On this, the U.P. Commission directed the Nayab Tehsildar to get the copy of the Lease Deed or Partnership Deed, which was executed between the tenant and his partner. Obviously, the private document was not with the Officer and the same could not be produced. In fact, a document was produced by the petitioners wherein it was said that the Partnership Deed between Amit and Kamal has come to an end, hence, Kamal could not be in possession of the shop in question. It is then that the U.P. Commission had gone ahead and came to a conclusion that Kamal has illegally taken possession of Shop No. 13/1 situated in Church area and the tenant has helped him to do so, hence, both are liable to be punished. The U.P. Commission further ordered that an FIR be registered against Kamal as he was found by the U.P. Commission to be an illegal occupant.