Allahabad High Court
Amit Rastogi And 6 Others vs Addl. Civil Judge (Senior ... on 24 June, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2192 of 2022
Petitioner :- Amit Rastogi And 6 Others
Respondent :- Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 20, Lko. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijai Singh,Prasiddha Narayan Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed with the following relief:-
"(i) To issue, order or direction to Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 20, Lucknow to decide the application dated 25.05.2017 filed by one of the petitioner Amit Rastogi U/s 151 CPC in regular Suit No. 1001/2010 Ram Krishna Swarnkar Vs. Sri Surya Bux Pal Charitable Trust and others within stipulated period prescribed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.
(ii) To issue order or direction to respondent no. 1 to 3 and 7 to ensure the compliance of interim order dated 22.01.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 20, Lucknow in regular Suit No. 1001/2010 Ram Krishna Swarnkar Vs. Sri Surya Bux Pal Charitable Trust and others in letter and spirit."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interim order dated 22.01.2011 was passed in regular Suit No. 1001 of 2010 (Ram Krishna Swarnkar Vs. Sri Surya Bux Pal Charitable Trust and others). He submits that direction was to the effect that the respondents shall not make any construction over the Gata No. 638 pertaining to the petitioner. The matter is still pending consideration before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow but the respondents are violating the order dated 22.01.2011 and have started construction over the land in question. He submits that after the aforesaid construction started, the petitioners approached different state authorities but the respondents are still violating the order dated 22.01.2011 and are forcibly constructing the house over the land. During the course of argument the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment reported in 2010 28 LCD 382 (Mohd. Hamja vs. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) Lucknow and others) placing the aforesaid judgment he has referred para 6, 7 and 8, which is quoted hereasunder:-
"6. In a democratic and civilized society while dispensing justice Courts posses two folds of duty. For the purpose to secure statutory and constitutional right delivery of judgment or pass an order or direction to meet the ends of justice and secondly to ensure that order passed by it while dispensing justice is implemented in its letter and spirit by the parties or authorities concerned. These are the basic tenets of rule of law in a civilized society so far as Courts are concerned. Failure on the part of Court to ensure the ends of justice may result into destruction of rule of law creating chaos in the society and breaking up social order. Accordingly, judicial officers or judges should always be alert to ensure that their orders are complied with by persons or authorities concerned.
7. In view of above, the Court has got ample power to enforce its order. Local authorities or officers concerned may be directed to ensure the compliance of injunction granted by the Court. The Court has got ample power to direct the police to ensure that no construction should be raised and parties may not remove any structure standing over the disputed land in terms of injunction granted by the Court. It should be paramount consideration of Court to ensure that rule of law should be maintained and orders of the Court must be complied with in its letter and spirit. Power to punish under the contempt, procedure does not fulfil the requirement and in case Court remain moot spectator and permit the parties or authorities to violate its order, damage may cause to parties and may suffer from irreparable loss and injury. Accordingly Trial Court should have issued appropriate direction or order to the local authorities and administration to ensure compliance of injunction granted by it in pursuance to inherent power conferred by section 151 of the C.P.C and it shall be obligatory for the State authorities to comply with such order.
8. Accordingly, as an interim measure, Senior Superintendent of Police/D.I.G Lucknow as well as the opposite party No. 2 are directed to ensure that in terms of interim injunction granted by the Trial Court, parties shall maintain status quo and no construction shall be raised over the disputed land and trees are not removed and nature of land should also not be changed unless injunction order is modified by the Court itself."
Referring the aforesaid para he submits that the writ in such a situation is maintainable and the State authorities may be directed to ensure the compliance in terms of the interim injunction granted by the trial court.
In such view of the matter, the respondent no. 2 i.e., Police Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow is hereby directed to ensure that in terms of the interim injunction granted by the trial court parties shall maintain status quo and no construction be raised over the disputed land unless injunction order dated 22.01.2011, remains in existence.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 24.6.2022
Ujjawal
