IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.23 OF 2011

[Arising out of SLP(C) No.144/2010]

Bachchu Singh .......Appellant  

Versus

State of UP & Ors. .....Respondents  

O R D E R

Leave granted.   

2. Agra Development Authority, the fourth respondent herein,  allotted  a  house  to  the  sixth  respondent  and  delivered  possession to her on 18.9.1986.  

3. The sixth respondent filed a writ petition in the year  2003 alleging that the appellant herein had illegally occupied  the said house and, seeking a direction to the respondents 1  to  4  herein  (State  of  UP,  District  Magistrate,  Agra,  Superintendent  of  Police,  Agra  and  the  Agra  Development  Authority) to evict the appellant from the house and deliver  vacant possession to her. The said writ petition was allowed

by  Division  Bench  of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  by  impugned  order  dated  25.11.2009.  The  High  Court  has  not  considered  either the facts or the legal position. By a brief order, it  narrates the aforesaid grievance of the sixth respondent that  the appellant had trespassed into her house and consequently,  directs the Collector, Agra to look into the matter personally  and if the appellant herein is found to be a trespasser, to  “throw him out” from the house within a period of one month  provided  there  is  no  legal  hurdle.  The  said  order  is  challenged by the appellant in this appeal by special leave.  

4. The  appellant  alleges  that  the  sixth  respondent  had  agreed to sell the said property in his favour in the year  1992 and in pursuance of the said agreement, had delivered  possession;  that  the  sixth  respondent  did  not  perform  the  contract  and  the  appellant  raised  the  dispute  which  was  referred to arbitration and the Arbitrator has made an award  dated  14.5.1996  which  was  made  a  rule  of  the  Court  on  29.1.1999;  that  the  execution  proceedings  initiated  by  the  appellant for obtaining a sale deed in pursuance of such award  is pending; and that therefore, the question of High Court  issuing a direction to the Collector to evict him does not  arise.  

2

5. The sixth respondent on the other hand contends that she  had not entered into any agreement of sale with the appellant  and  alleges  that  she  did  not  deliver  possession  to  the  appellant.  According  to  her,  the  appellant  having  forcibly  taken possession, has created documents to show an agreement  of sale and the award made is illegal and liable to be set  aside. Be that as it may.  

6. If the appellant had illegally encroached or dispossessed  the sixth respondent, the appropriate course for the sixth  respondent was to file a suit or have recourse to such other  remedies as may be open to her in law. The fourth respondent  (the Agra Development Authority) having delivered possession  of  the  property  to  the  sixth  respondent  on  18.8.1986,  any  subsequent alleged dispossession of the sixth respondent by  any third party, will not give any cause of action for the  sixth  respondent  to  seek  a  direction  to  either  the  Agra  Development  Authority  or  the  State  Government  or  its  authorities to evict such person who allegedly dispossessed  the sixth respondent.  

7. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed, the order  of the High Court is set aside, the writ petition is dismissed  without prejudice to the rights of the sixth respondent to  

3

take  such action  as is  available to  her in  law to  secure  possession  of  the  house,  if  she  has  been  dispossessed  illegally.  

.....................J.           ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

New Delhi;            ....................J. January 03, 2011.                   ( A.K. PATNAIK )

4