VED PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 9.1.2004 (annexure No. 23) to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 3. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to restore status quo ante and to pay damages and cost of the petition.

(2.) The bone of contention between the parties is ghata plot No. 80 area 6-14-4 situate in village Dhansari, town area Charra, District Aligarh. The petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 (Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Atrauli, Aligarh), initiated the proceedings on the direction of respondent No. 2 the District Magistrate, Aligarh, in purported exercise of powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C., although entire proceeding was without jurisdiction. The respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, in collusion with the official machinery attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the above noted plot over which he continues to be in possession for a long time. Nawab Rahnitullah, respondent No. 6 had filed a suit No. 85 of 1974 before the Civil Judge, Aligarh impleading Gauri Shanker and Damodar Shastri as defendants. In that suit, declaration of title was claimed. Subsequently on 25.1.1984, respondent No. 6 moved an application for amendment impleading the petitioner and his brothers and claiming the relief for possession as according to him, the defendants Gauri Shanker and Damodar had given possession to the petitioner. That application was opposed but was allowed and the petitioner and his brothers were impleaded as defendants llnd set. Thus, respondent No. 6, admitted in the suit that he was not in possession over the property in dispute. When the writ petition was filed that suit was pending.

(3.) In collusion with respondent No. 6, Gauri Shanker is alleged to have initiated a proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Atrauli, against the petitioner and his brothers describing the property in dispute, as plot No. 230 in place of plot No. 80. In that matter attachment was obtained by Nawab Rahmatullah and Gauri Shanker and one Damodar was appointed as Supurdgar. Since in that matter, plot No. 230 was mentioned, therefore respondent No. 6 could not succeed in dispossessing the petitioner from the plot No. 80. Respondent No. 6 also got a suit No. 179 of 1982 instituted through Gauri Shanker. In that matter Gauri Shanker also filed an application for temporary injunction. The property in dispute was not properly described and Gauri Shanker filed an application for amendment substituting plot No. 80 in place of plot No. 230 and also for deleting the word 'ownership' and substituting it by 'lawful occupier'. However, the injunction application as well as amendment application were rejected by the learned Trial Court and the revision and appeal filed against that order were also dismissed by the third A.D.J. vide judgment and order dated 12.8.1983. According to the petitioner in those proceedings it was recorded that petitioner and his brother were in possession of plot No. 80, Against the order of the appellate Court, Gauri Shanker filed a writ petition No. 921 of 1984 in this Court but the same was dismissed by order dated 17.1.85.