AZAZUL HUQ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the plaintiffs in a suit (Original Suit No. 121 of 2012) which is pending before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahedi, District Bareilly. The case of the petitioners is that they are bhumidhars of Plot No. 105 admeasuring 0.341 hectares situated in Village Jam Sawant Shumali, Pargana Richha, Tehsil Bahedi, District Bareilly. According to the petitioners, the name of their grandfather was recorded in the revenue record. The name of the gram sabha is stated to have been expunged on 13 October 1964. According to the petitioners, an ex parte order was passed on 22 September 2008 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bahedi in Case No. 130 of 2007 under Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, striking off the name of the petitioners' grandfather from the revenue records and by the said order, the land was recorded in the name of the gram sabha. The petitioners have stated before the Court that they filed a restoration application on 28 July 2012 for recalling the order dated 22 September 2008. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bahedi recalled his earlier order dated 22 September 2008. In the meantime, according to the petitioners, the private respondents, respondents 8 and 9, tried to occupy the disputed land on 10 November 2012. The petitioners instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahedi. After hearing the parties to the suit including the Collector Bareilly, the learned trial Judge passed an order dated 21 February 2014, restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the petitioners during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) It is alleged in the writ petition that in violation of the interim order dated 21 February 2014, the defendants to the suit were bent upon constructing a building on the land, upon which the petitioners filed an application before the trial Court. By an order dated 30 May 2014, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly1 and Station House Officer, Bahedi were directed to comply with the interim injunction. Since, according to the petitioners, this was not heeded, they submitted an application to the trial court to provide police force on 31 May 2014 for compliance of the interim injunction. The learned trial Judge directed the petitioners to deposit the expenses of the police force for ensuring compliance of the order dated 30 May 2014. The petitioners filed an application on 2 June 2014 before the SSP, upon which he made an endorsement requiring the Station House Officer Bahedi to report with fact. The petitioners also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in which notices were issued on 21 March 2014. The said proceeding is stated to be pending.

(3.) In paragraph 20 of the petition before this Court, it has been averred that the private respondents, with the help of certain persons, entered the residence of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahedi on 31 May 2014 between 8.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. and threatened him for having passed the order of interim injunction on 21 February 2014. The Civil Judge, it is alleged, approached the police and thereupon issued a notice on 2 June 2014 for contempt of court against the fourth respondent, the District Magistrate, Bareilly. On these facts, the petitioners filed the writ petition before this Court on 19 June 2014 during the course of the summer recess seeking a mandamus to the authorities to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners. The second prayer, which was for compliance of the order of interim injunction dated 21 February 2014, reads as follows: