JUDGMENT 1. The 'poverty jurisprudence' evolved in Asiad case People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India and others ( AIR 1982 SC 1473 ) according to the conclusion of Prof. Madhava Menon; has its echoes in this court also, when an old, infirm, and retired peon, Gangaram persisted in crying from the highest pitch of his voice for justice, almost everyday during the proceedings of the court, in other cases. Thrown from 'piller to pole' and 'pole to piller' with a begging bowel for justice, by various authorities and courts, and having failed to get the relief, even after obtaining favourable orders several times from several forums, the petitioner who has been compelled by force of circumstances to talk incoherently, has been successful in breaking the ice, by getting his writ petition heard and decided, more on consideration of equity and justice, then the technicalities of law. 2. The tell tale of his woe, suffering and tragic and pathetic plight in the matter of invasions and encroachments, trespass and demolitions of his property, is not a story only but may have relevancy and validity for a tragedian novel. Being a refugee on partition of his mother land-India, and having obtained some property from custodian as a refugee, he did not cease to be refugee but continued to be so, on account of continuous "pricks and kicks", in the enjoyment of that property. The tragic trilogy of failure of law courts to provide relief, justice, handicape of poverty and illiteracy, numerical inferiority of the petitioner to his adversaries, he added insult to his injuries, resulting in un-ending stream of litigation wherein the petitioner has been roaming from one office to other, and from one court to other, knocking the doors for his entry and is being pushed out by his adversaries again and again. With the above pivot of the debate and controversies, let me now narrate the traditional facts, after untraditional introduction. 3. This writ petition has been filed by Gangaram, who personally argued his case in addition to his counsel Mr. V.S. Dave, and who has been invariably appearing in this court almost everyday, praying for early decision of this case from the date of its admission till now. 4. 3. This writ petition has been filed by Gangaram, who personally argued his case in addition to his counsel Mr. V.S. Dave, and who has been invariably appearing in this court almost everyday, praying for early decision of this case from the date of its admission till now. 4. Since, Gangaram has introduced several matters relevant as well as irrelevant, and has not allowed his counsel to argue the case fully on all aspects, I have preferred to read the writ petition myself, and the entire record in order to do justice between the parties. So far as the respondents are concerned, they are represented by M/s P.D. Mathur, who has filed written arguments on behalf of respondents Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. and K.N. Tikku, who has filed written arguments on behalf of respondents Nos. 3, 4, & 5. and Shri S.K. Jain, who represents non-petitioner No. 13 in addition to the Government Advocate Shri M.I. Khan, who represents the Collector. Jaipur. 5. The entire dispute centres round a Haveli known as Khajiyon-ki-Haveli in the street of Dewan Bhagchand at Sonthali-Walon-ka Rasta, Jaipur. The occupants of this house left for Pakistan at the time of partition and, therefore, it was declared evacuee property. Three-fourth portion of this Haveli was allotted to Gangaram by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on 2-6-58. The remaining 1/4th portion of the Haveli remained in possession of Gafooran. By letter dated 14-10-58, the petitioner was directed to erect a wall in between the poly, which leads to the second chowk of the first floor and he was directed to erect a wall between the poly on the ground floor, which leads to the door of the second chowk. This letter Annexure-1 reads as under:- "No. 1507/10417 Government of India. Ministry of Rehabilitation Office of the Managing Officer Cum Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property Jaipur Zone, Jalebi chowk, Jaipur. Dated the 14th Oct., 58. To Shri Gangaram s/n Gopaldas, House No. 1707 Sutliyon Ki Gali, Dewan Bhagchand Ki Gali, Telipara, Jaipur. With reference to your application dated 17-9-58 you are hereby directed to erect a wall in-between the Poli which leads to the 2nd chowk of the first floor. 2. The roof over the Tibara on the right side of the 1st chock (which is now a shop) can also be enjoyed by you. 3. With reference to your application dated 17-9-58 you are hereby directed to erect a wall in-between the Poli which leads to the 2nd chowk of the first floor. 2. The roof over the Tibara on the right side of the 1st chock (which is now a shop) can also be enjoyed by you. 3. He should also erect a wall in between the 1st Poli of the ground floor which will go to the door of the second chowk. He will make all the changes at his own costs. 4. The latrine on the first floor has already been given to you. Sd. Illegible 14-10-58. (HEM CHANDRA) Managing Officer Cum-Asst. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Jaipur." 6. Accordingly, the walls were constructed and Gafooran, who was alive did not raise any objection. Gafooran expired on 17.8.65. On her death, Nawab Ali, Azam Ali, Gafoor Ali, Sarfoo, Bashir, and Rashid illegally occupied the portion in possession of Gaffooran and started harassing the petitioner. The petitioner and his family members were threat end with the result that the petitioner initiated proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. C. in 1965. The City Magistrate, Jaipur City, by his order dated 6.4.66 bound down Nawab Ali for keeping peace and Nawab Ali furnished bond and surety for keeping peace. The appeal and revision filed by Nawab Ali were dismissed. 7. Even after execution of the bonds for keeping the peace and being of good behaviour, Nawab All continued threatening the petitioner, which resulted in second innings of the proceedings under Section 107, Cr. P.C. Nawab Ali, Kamruddin, Bashir, Gafoor Ali and Azam All were again bound down for keeping peace by order dated 10.4.72. The revision preferred against this order was also dismissed on 3.8.72. 8. Nawab Ali and others in spite of twice being bound down for keeping peace did not keep the peace, but demolished the walls constructed by the petitioner with malafide intention to illegally grab a portion of petitioner's share of the Haveli, as they earlier grabbed Gafooran's share. Gafooran expired without leaving any heir. 9. The petitioner's tale of woe and suffering did not end and he approached the executive authorities also. He even approached the highest dignatory and the head of the Union of India, the President of India, for redressal of his grievances, but of no avail. 10. Gafooran expired without leaving any heir. 9. The petitioner's tale of woe and suffering did not end and he approached the executive authorities also. He even approached the highest dignatory and the head of the Union of India, the President of India, for redressal of his grievances, but of no avail. 10. The petitioner then commenced proceedings for getting 1/4th portion of the Haveli declared 'Lawaris' under the provisions of Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A report from the Tehsildar was called under Section 4 of the Act. After receipt of the report front the Tehsildar, Jaipur, the Collector, Jaipur issued a proclamation under Section 6 of the Act, on 19.6.71. All the respondents except 1 and 2 preferred their claims as heirs of Gafooran. On an application of the petitioner dated 13.3.73, site was inspected by the Tehsildar, Jaipur, and a report was submitted on 12.6.74. The Additional Collector, Jaipur also inspected the site and made enquiry, and he, therefore, directed the claimants to apply for succession certificate in respect of the property within a period of two months in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the Act. The respondent-claimants did not apply and could not obtain succession certificate. The Additional Collector was, therefore, satisfied that it was a case of escheat on account of absence of heirs and he passed an order on 20.2.75 requesting the District judge to pass a vesting order under the Act. 11. The District ,Judge, Jaipur City, refused to pass a vesting order, and also refused to declare the property as escheat vide order dated 8.3.79. The petitioner is aggrieved by that order of the District Judge and also by respondents' Act of demolishing the walls. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, prayed that this hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept this writ petition and: (I) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 8.3.1979, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. (II) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction remanding the case to the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur with the direction to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. (II) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction remanding the case to the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur with the direction to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. (III) issue any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of 3/4th portion of the Haveli in dispute and allow the petitioner to erect walls in terms of order dated 14.10.1958." 12. The principal ground of the writ petition is that the District judge has failed to take notice of the report of the Tehsilder and the findings of the Additional Collector, Jaipur. It has been pointed out that the Additional Collector in view of the complicated questions of fact and law directed the claimants to obtain succession certificate, but they have not complied with this order, and, therefore, as the order was passed under sub-sec. (7) of Section 6 of the Act, the failure of the claimants to obtain succession certificate was enough to declare the property as escheat and pass a vesting order. It was then pointed out that the claimants are not heirs of Gafooran and there is no evidence to that effect. 13. Contray to it, the learned counsel for the respondents both by written as well as verbal arguments have submitted that Gangaram has got no legal right to file this writ petition, as he was an informant only. It was also argued that the order is based on documentary evidence. 14. On a thoughtful consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the petitioner in person, and after a careful study of the record of the case, I have come to the conclusion that the order of the District judge is perfunctory in nature. There is only one para which can be said to be devoted to the principal discussion in respect of the claims of the claimants, which reads as under:- "I have gone through the oral evidence of the witnesses and the documents referred to above. It appears that house No.-1767 in dispute is a big house in which many persons are living. Originally it belonged to some Mohamedan. Some of them migrated to Pakistan. Before migrating to Pakistan in 1947, some portions were alienated to the predecessors of Vinod Babu and others by registered deeds. It appears that house No.-1767 in dispute is a big house in which many persons are living. Originally it belonged to some Mohamedan. Some of them migrated to Pakistan. Before migrating to Pakistan in 1947, some portions were alienated to the predecessors of Vinod Babu and others by registered deeds. In pursuance of these deeds, Devisingh, Vinod Baba and Satya Narain are in possession of some portions of the building. The other claimants Gafoor Ali and others arc heirs of one Still, Gafooran. The evidence adduced by the claimants prima facie show that the property in dispute cannot be taken to be to have vested in the State as ultimate heirs." 15. A close study of the above para would show that the learned District Judge has not specified which portions were alienated to the predecessors of Vinod Babu and others and in which portions Vinod Babu, Devisingh and Satya Narain are in possession. He has also failed to mention in this para as to how Gafoor Ali and others are heirs of Gafooran. He has not discussed either the oral or documentary evidence and which particular document helps or assists or substantiates the case of the objectors. The learnd District Judge has not at all discussed the reasons given by the Tehsildar and the Additional Collector for holding that the property is 'Lawaris' on account of which a prayer was made that a vesting order may be passed. It was essential and necessary for the learned District, Judge to discuss the report of the Tehsildar and Additional Collector in details and to give reasons why he disagreed with the finding that the property is 'Lawaris'. 16. It was all the more necessary, because the Additional Collector has issued a direction to the claimants to apply for succession certificate, but they did not do so. 16. It was all the more necessary, because the Additional Collector has issued a direction to the claimants to apply for succession certificate, but they did not do so. Sub-section (7) of Section 6 of the Act reads as under:- "The Collector may, if any inquiry under this section involves a complicated question of law as to title or status which has not been previously adjudicated upon by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction, and shall, if there are two or more claimants in respect of the same property, require any or all of the claimants to apply for a succession certificate in respect of such property or to institute a suit for declaration of title thereto within such period not exceeding six months in the aggregate as the Collector may from time to time fix. and if such application or suit has been made or instituted; the Collector shall stay the proceedings before hint and the disposal of the property shall be subject to the result thereof." Even the respondents have not disputed that such a direction was given. If that is so, it is difficult to appreciate why the District,Judge did not take notice of this important fact. Unless the respondents were able to explain and give sufficient reasons for not complying with the order under sub-section (7), the duty of the District judge was to apply his mind to this important aspect of the case, and then unless explained otherwise to draw an adverse inference against the claimants. Failure to apply mind on this important aspect of the case and to consider the reports of the Tehsildar and the Additional Collector is failure to exercise jurisdiction bested in the District Judge. Even otherwise, when documentary and oral evidence was adduced before him, the minimum that was necessary for the learned District judge was to mention the contents in brief of each document and oral evidence, and then to analyse and appreciate the evidence. It is significant to note that the learned District Judge in a most perfunctory manner has dealt with the evidence in the following one para:- "The objectors have examined 8 witnesses in all. They are AW1 Azam Ali, AW2 Smt. Bismilla, AW3 Vinod Babu, AW4 Vijai Singh, AW5 Durga Prasad, AW6 Devisingh, AW7 Amar Singh and AW8 Sobhagmal. They have also filed documents Ex. AW.3/1 to Ex. AW.3/19. Some other documents were also filed. They are AW1 Azam Ali, AW2 Smt. Bismilla, AW3 Vinod Babu, AW4 Vijai Singh, AW5 Durga Prasad, AW6 Devisingh, AW7 Amar Singh and AW8 Sobhagmal. They have also filed documents Ex. AW.3/1 to Ex. AW.3/19. Some other documents were also filed. Some of these documents are registered deeds." It is surprising that the District judge has not even taken pains to mention which registered deeds relate to which property and how did they affect the rights of the claimants. He has also not mentioned how these witnesses from AW1 to AW8 prove that the respondents are heirs of Gafooran or that they have any legal right to possession in with share of the property, which was of Gafooran. As a matter of fact one is left in confusion as to how Devisingh, Vinod Babu and Satya Narain are in possession of the property when these persons could not have been the heirs of Gafooran and who alienated the property to them and under what legal right. It is unfortunate that the District Judge gave such a cryptic, scanty and perfunctory judgment in a litigation where the Additional Collector and the Tehsildar have given reports against the claimants, and Gangaram was pursuing his objection against these persons, although he was being thrown from pole to pillar and pillar to pole by different executive or judicial agencies. 17. It is also surprising that in this decision the learned District judge has not said which one of the claimants is the heir of Gafooran, and what is the exact relationship between them. No pedegree table or table showing relationship has been given. I am, therefore, convinced that the dismissal of the application of Collector under Section 6 (9)(b) of the Act is based on a complete failure of jurisdiction by refusing to exercise jurisdiction, in as much as the District Judge has not applied his judicial mind to tie facts proved, evidence produced, reports made by the Tehsildar and the Additional Collector and the issues involved in the case, because he has rejected the prayer of the Collector by a perfunctory, cryptic, scanty, and a superficial finding. 18. It may be mentioned here that after a thorough enquiry by the Tehsildar and the Additional Collector and after the claimants failed to comply with the order passed under sub- section (7) of Section 6 of the Act, the Addl. 18. It may be mentioned here that after a thorough enquiry by the Tehsildar and the Additional Collector and after the claimants failed to comply with the order passed under sub- section (7) of Section 6 of the Act, the Addl. Collector being satisfied on an enquiry in accordance with Section 6 of the Act made a prayer for vesting order in terms of sub-clause (b) of sub-sec. (9) of Section 6 of the Act, which reads as under:- "(b) the last owner of the property in question died in the State and without leaving any known heir, that the claim preferred under sub-sec. (6) is not prima facie maintainable, that there is no such person entitled to claim such property and that it is a bona fide case of property vesting in the State as ultima heres under Article 296 of the Constitution of India, by escheat or as bona vacantia for want of rightful owner, he shall apply to the Court for a vesting order in respect of the property and for the custody thereof in the meanwhile. Provided that no application for restoration of such possession or for vesting order shall be made until the time prescribed for preferring an appeal under section 7 has expired or until the appeal, if any, preferred has been disposed of. 19. There are two courses open to this Court normally in appeal or revisional side when an order is set aside. Firstly, this court can direct the lower court to reconsider and decide the case afresh. Secondly, this court can itself consider the entire case and decide the case itself. 20. I am hearing the case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and not as appellate or revisional court. I am conscious of the fact that the petitioner Gangaram is one of those litigants who has been praying for relief every day by remaining physically present in the court, and on account of lower start of life being a peon and class IV servant, he could not assist this court properly, nor he could manage proper legal assistance. Even then, this Court has got its own limitations, and although it would result in prolonging litigation, which should have been avoided, I cannot act as appellate or revisional court, and decide the case afresh by considering the evidence myself. 21. Even then, this Court has got its own limitations, and although it would result in prolonging litigation, which should have been avoided, I cannot act as appellate or revisional court, and decide the case afresh by considering the evidence myself. 21. That being so, I have got no option but to quash the judgment of the learned District Judge dated 8.3.79, so that the District ,judge can decide the case afresh by treating that the prayer of the Additional Collector for passing a vesting order is to be considered afresh now to the limited extent that the disputed property shown in yellow colour in the site plan prepared by the Tehsildar, Jaipur and referred to in the last para of the order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur dated 20.2.75, which is claimed by the persons who are in possession of that property, and who claim themselves to be the heirs and legal representatives of Nawab Ali. In other words, the proceedings before the District judge now which would be taken afresh would be limited to the property referred to in the last para of the said order of the Additional-Collector only and not beyond that. I am not inclined to interfere with the other part of the property in respect of which the Additional Collector was not convinced that it is escheat property, and there is no intention to reopen those issues now. 22. I have not been able to persuade myself to leave the case by passing the above order only, because I find that the principal grievance of Gangaram which resulted in these escheat proceedings is that the walls which were constructed in pursuance of the order of the Custodian Department by the petitioner have been demolished. Letter dated 14.10.58 has been extracted above. 23. It is obvious from the record that after construction of the walls in pursuance of the order dated 14.10.58,the respondents other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have repeatedly demolished them, and they have further harassed the petitioner from time to time with the result that the petitioner was forced to file proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. repeatedly, and those proceedings were accepted. 1 and 2 have repeatedly demolished them, and they have further harassed the petitioner from time to time with the result that the petitioner was forced to file proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. repeatedly, and those proceedings were accepted. The recored of the case is flooded with such applications of Gangaram, which are inumerable, and the orders of the Magistrate and the appellate authorities in proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. and otherwise in addition to the various letters of public representatives for recommending help and assistance to Gangaram who is it poor person. It may be that some of them are relevant and others are irrelevant. It may be that the recommendations of the political leaders produced by Gangram on account of ignorance of judicial proceedings have got no relevancy and I cannot act upon them for any purpose whatsoever. However, the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur dated 3.6.81 against Kamruddin, Salimuddin and Munna son of Nawab Ali clearly shows that the accused had committed an offence under Section 427. IPC, and they were punished with imprisonment of two months and a fine of Rs. 200/- each. They were also punished for offence under Section 448, I.P.C and it was on the application of Gangaram dated 2.4.72. in which he alleged that the accused have committed criminal trespass and are doing mischief in this house. The orders of other authorities produced in the case also go to show that from time to time the claimants were bound down for keeping peace against Gangaram. A glance of the papers of the record shows that there are several complaints, applications, representations, decisions, orders, and judgments. which all tell the tale of woe and suffering and of harassment and injustice to Gangaram. 24. It is, therefore, established that the claimant-respondents demolished the walls repeatedly, and they are taking the law in their own hands to commit criminal trespass, harass, humiliate, and intimidate the petitioner. 25. I further find from the report dated 1.6.78 of the Additional Collector Shri Tara Chand, that the walls were got constructed by the City Magistrate with the help of the police, after the non-applicants were bound down, but the non- applicants again demolished the walls on 25.3.72. 25. I further find from the report dated 1.6.78 of the Additional Collector Shri Tara Chand, that the walls were got constructed by the City Magistrate with the help of the police, after the non-applicants were bound down, but the non- applicants again demolished the walls on 25.3.72. The latest report of the Additional Collector, which was submitted before this Court, also supports the allegation of the petitioner Gangaram that the walls have been demolished again and again, and the non-applicants and their family members are harassing and intimidating the petitioner by committing criminal trespass and mischief repeatedly. This report of the Additional-Collector, Jaipur has been submitted to the Collector, Jaipur in pursuance of an enquiry on his application dated 8.6.82 and another application dated 29.7.82. This report of the Additional-Collector, Jaipur has been submitted to the Collector, Jaipur in pursuance of an enquiry on his application dated 8.6.82 and another application dated 29.7.82. In this report, the Additional Collector has come to the following finding:-- fooknxzLr gosyh ftldk 3@4 fgLlk dLVksfM;u foHkkx }kjk 'kj.kkFkhZ xaxkjke dks vkoafVr fd;k x;k Fkk ml gosyh ds pkSFks Hkkx dk fgLlsnkj gkth NqV~Vu o mldh ifRu Jhefr xQwju dh e`R;q ds ckn gosyh dk mDr 1@4 fgLlk fnukad 20-2-75 dks lgk;d ftyk/kh'k ,oa dk;Zikyd n.Muk;d t;iqj }kjk ykokfjl ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ Jh xaxkjke dk dguk gS fd Lo Jh gkth NqV~Vu o Jhefr xQwju ds ykokfjl ?kksf"kr fgLls ij dqN yksxksa ftlesa gkth] eqUuk] gehn] lyhe o de:nhu vkfn gS] muds }kjk gkft NqV~Vu o Jhefr xQwju ds fgLls ij voS/k :i ls uktk;t dCtk dj fy;k rFkk ;s yksx izkFkhZ xaxkjke dks vkoafVr edku ds fgLls esa ls gksdj vkrs tkrs gS rFkk mlds fgLls ds ik[kkus vkfn dk mi;ksx djrs gS rFkk izkFkhZ dh ?kjokyh o yM+dh vkfn dks NsM+rs gS] o euk djus ij izkFkhZ o mlds ?kjokyksa ls ekjihV o >xM+k Qlkn djus dk Jkenk gksrs gS rFkk tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsrs gSA bu nksuksa ds chp bl izdkj dk >xM+k o ruko dkQh yEcs le; ls py jgk gS rFkk fLFkfr dkQh uktqd cuh gqbZ gSA ftlesa dHkh Hkh dksbZ Hkh vfiz; ?kVuk gks ldrh gSA eg:i NqV~Vu o Jhefr xQwju ds vk/kkfjr ?kksf"kr fgLls ij eqUuk] gehn] lyhe de:nhu vkfn xSjlk;yk us voS/k :i ls dCtk dj j[kk gSA ;s yksx vius Jhefr xQwju dk fj'rsnkj crykrs gSA dLVksfM;u foHkkx }kjk Jhefr xQwju o izkFkhZ Jh xaxkjke dks vkoafVr 3@4 fgLlk ds e/; ,d nhokj cuokdj o gosyh ds nksuksa fgLlksa dks vyx&vyx djok fn;k x;k Fkk rkfd JkoaVh xaxkjke o Jhefr xQwju ds e/; fdlh izdkj dk fookn u gksA vizkFkhx.kksa gjth] eqUuk] gehn o de:nhu tks Jhefr xQwju ds fgLls ij dkfct gS] muds }kjk dLVksfM;u foHkkx }kjk izkFkhZ xaxkjke dks vkoafVr 3@4 fgLls dks vyx j[kus dh n`f"V ls cuokbZ xbZ nhokj dks rksM+ dj fn;k x;k ftlls lk;y xaxkjke o vizkFkhZx.kksa ds chp xaHkhj >xM+k fQlkn gksus o tkueky ds [krjk gksus rFkk {ks= dh 'kkafr Hkax gksus dk vUns'kk iSnk gks x;kA vr% ,l0,p0vks0] ek.kd pksd dh vksj ls rRdkyhu uxj n.Muk;d Jh xksis'oj HkV ds U;k;ky; esa 107@116 ds vUrxZr xSjlk;yku dks 'kkafr cuk;s j[kus gsrq tekur] eqpydksa ls ikcUn djkus gsrq izkFkZuk dh xbZA ftl ij rRdkyhu uxj n.Muk;d }kjk vius vkns'k fnukad 6-4-66 }kjk xSjlk;yku e;kn vkfn dks 500&500 :i;ksa ds eqpydksa ls ikcUn djrs gq, izkFkhZ ds fgLls esa n[kyvankth u djus o 'kkfUr cuk;s j[kus ds fy, 500&500 :0 ds tekurh eqpydksa ls ,d lky dh vof/k ds fy, ikcUn fd;k x;kA uxj n.Mkuk;d ds bl vkns'k ds fo:) vizkFkhZx.kksa }kjk is'k dh xbZ vihy Hkh fnukad 7-4-67 dks [kkfjt dj nh xbZA izkFkhZ xaxkjke }kjk gosyh ds igys o nwljs pkSd es vius fgLls dks vyx j[kus vkSj xSj O;fDr;ksa ds vius fgLls esa vkenjQr jksdus dh n`f"V ls tks nhokj cuokbZ xbZ Fkh mls vizkFkhZ;ku }kjk ikcUn gksus ds ckotwn rksM+ fn;k x;k rFkk os yksx iqu% izkFkhZ xaxkjke dks vkoafVr fgLls esa ls gksdj vkus tkus yxsA izkFkhZ xaxkjke ds fgLls dks vyx j[kus ds fy, rRdkyhu uxj n.Muk;d dh mifLFkr esa iqfyl dh lgk;rk ls fnukad 10&5&59 dks nhokj cuokbZ xbZ Fkh] ftls xSjlk;yku }kjk tcju 28&5&69 dks rksM+ fn;k x;k rFkk njoktk vkfn Hkh rksM+ fn;k x;kA LoxhZ; Jhefr xQwju dh 1@4 fgLls esa jgus okys yksxksa dks vkus tkus ds fy, gosyh ls lnj njokts ds ckn yxs gq, egjkc ls gksdj gosyh esa vkus tkus dk ,d jkLrk fn;k x;k FkkA ijUrq orZeku es mDr njokts dks iRFkjksa ls cUn fd;k gqvk gSA ekSds ij gosyh ds igys pkSd esa iwoZ esa cukbZ xbZ nhokj ds iRFkj gS ftUgs xSjlk;yku }kjk tksjtcjnLrh ls rksM+ fn;k x;k FkkA xSjlk;yku o izkFkhZ xaxkjke dks vkoafVr 3@4 fgLls esa vizkFkhZ;ksa }kjk fujUrj vke njQr cuk;s j[kus o izkFkhZ ds vius ifjokj esa vdsyk vkneh gksus dk Qk;nk mBkrs gq, fgLls ij vukf/kd`r :I ls dCtk djus dh dksf'k'ks djus o mlds fgLls ds VV~Vh] i[kkus dk bLrseky djus rFkk yM+kbZ >xM+k djus ds iz;klksa dks ns[krs gq, ,l0,p0vks0 ek.kd pkSd }kjk iqu% rRdkfyu uxj n.Muk;d t;iqj Jh rkjkizdk'k tks'kh ds U;k;ky; esa fjiksVZ izLrqr dh xbZ ftl ij rRdkfyu uxj n.Muk;d }kjk lEiw.kZ fLFkr ij fopkj djus o nksuksa i{kksa dks Hkyh Hkkafr lquus o Lo;a ekSds ds fujh{k.k ds ckn xSjlk;yku dks 'kkafr cuk;s j[kus ds fy, 500&500 :i;s tekurh eqpydksa ls iqu% ikcUn fd;k x;kA ekSds dh rktk fLFkfr ;g gS fd fooknxzLr gosyh esa LoxhZ; Jhefr xQwju 1@4 fgLls ij dkfct O;fDr;ksa }kjk izkFkhZ dks vkoafVr gosyh ds fgLls esa ls gksdj vkenjQr dh gqbZ gS] ftlls izkFkhZ ds ifjokj fo'ks"kdj vkSjrksa dks cgqr ijs'kkuh gksrh gS o mldh izkboslh lEiw.kZ :i ls [kRe gksrh gSA fooknkxzLr gosyh ds lnj xsV ds ikl egjkc esa gksdj xSjlk;yku dks jkLrk iwoZ esa vkus tkus ij fn;k x;k Fkk] mldks cUn dj mlesa nwdku yxk nh xbZ gS rFkk xSjlk;yku dh vkSj ls edku esa dbZ fdjk;snkj j[k fn;s x;s gS tks izkFkhZ xaxkjke ls fdlh u fdlh ckr ij jkst yM+rs jgrs gS] ftlls ruko dh fLFkfr cuh gqbZ gS gosyh ds rhljs pkSd esa fdlh gyokbZ }kjk feBkbZ;ka cukus dk dk;Z fd;k tk jgk gS ekSds ij tkudkjh djus ij crk;k x;k fd gosyh ds bl fgLls dks lEcfU/kr gyokbZ }kjk [kjhn fy;k x;k gSA ijUrq gosyh dk rhljk pkSd gyokbZ }kjk fdl O;fDr ls dc [kjhnk x;k vkSj D;k cspus okyk O;fDr okLro esa gosyh ds ml fgLls dk lgh ekfyd Fkk vkSj D;k og dkuwuh rkSj ij dLVksfM;u foHkkx dh bl lEifRr dks vU; dksbZ O;fDr csp ldrk Fkk vkfn iz'uksa ds ckjs es ekSds ij dksbZ larks"k tud Li"Vhdj.k ugh fn;k x;k vkSj u gh bl laca/k esa dkxtkr izLrqr fd;s x;sA bl izdj.k esa le; le; ij uxj n.Muk;d t;iqj dh vnkyr esa izLrqr gq, bLrxklksa ij fn;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa ,oa lgk;d ftyk/kh'k ,oa n.Muk;d Jh rkjkpUn dh fjiksVZ fnukad 1-6-78] vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx ds lfdZy bUlisDVj dh tkap fjiksVZ fnukad 30-6-72 vkfn dk voyksdu djus ls fLFkfr iw.kZr;k Li"V gks tkrh gS xSjlk;yku dks eqfUlQ eftLV~sV dh vnkyr ds fu.kZ; fnukad 21-6-77 lfgr le; le; ij fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vius fu.kZ;ksa esa ikcUn fd;k x;k gS ijUrq fQj Hkh xSjlk;yu dh gBdehZ o tksjtcZnLrh ds dkj.k fLFkr vkt rd R;ksa foLQksVd cuh gqbZ gSA ekSds ds fufj{k.k ,oa fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa }kjk le; le; ij fn;s x;s fu.kZ;ksa rFkk Hkkjr ljdkj ds dLVksfM;u foHkkx ds i=kfn ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ Jh xaxkjke dks dLVksfM;u foHkkx }kjk nhoku HkkxpUn dh xyh fLFkr gosyh uEcj 1769 dk tks 3@4 fgLlk vkoafVr fd;k x;k Fkk ml ij xSjlk;yku dh vkSj ls uktk;t n[kyUnkth dj izkFkhZ xaxkjke dks detksj] xjhc o vdsyk tkudj ijs'kku fd;k tk jgk gS ftlls 'kkfUr Hkax gksus dk vans'kk fujarj cuk gqvk gS bl fookn dks fuiVkus ds fy;s ;g vko';d gS fd dLVksfM;u foHkkx }kjk izkFkhZ dks tks gosyh dk 3@4 fgLlk vkoafVr gqvk vkSj ftldks vyx j[kus vkSj gncUnh djus dh n`f"V ls iwoZ esa tks nhokj cuokbZ xbZ Fkh rFkk izkFkhZx.k }kjk o gosyh esa jgusokys vU; O;fDr;ksa ds fy;s tks nks vyx vyx njokts fuf'pr djrs gq, iwoZ esa [kqyok;s x;s Fks mudks iqu% jsLVksj fd;k tk;s] rFkk orZeku esa gosyh ds rhljs pkSd dks ,d gyokbZ }kjk fdUgh O;fDr;ksa ls [kjhnk tkdj tks dCtk fd;k gqvk gS ml fgLls dks dCts jkt fd;k tkdj fookn ds vafre :i ls fu.kZ; gksus rd fgLls ij fjlhoj eqdj fd;k tk;A 26. This report dated 17.9.82, which has been filed in this Court during the pendency of the writ petition is very revealing and proves conclusively that the petitioner Gangaram is really subject matter of great injustice, harassment, intimidation and in spite of various courts taking action under Section 107. C r.P.C. and in spite of the fact that the City Magistrate got the walls constructed with the police- help, the non-applicants claimants are insisting, and persisting on unlawful activity of demolishing them and committing criminal trespass by misusing their numerical strength against Gangaram who is a poor retired peon without any resources and support. This great injustice which is being done to him deserves to be remedied by this Court. 27. I therefore, direct that Gangaram would be entitled to construct the walls again as per the directions of the Custodian Department mentioned in the above letter dated 14.10.58, and in case he cannot construct them on account of the physical superior strength of the non-applicants, the same would be constructed under the supervision of the City Magistrate, Jaipur, who will take necessary help of police as taken earlier in this respect. Shri Richpal Singh Advocate is directed to supervise the operations of the constructions under the authority of the City Magistrate without charging any fee, as a representative of the free legal aid committee of this Court. He may seek any further instructions from this Court, if it becomes necessary. 28. The respondents other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to file this writ petition. It is true that normally a person should show that he has got some legal right which has been infringed in order to have locus standi to file a writ petition. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly was given possession of 3/4th of the property in dispute by the Custodian Department, and he is owner of drat property. As discussed above, the respondents other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been interfering with the possession and peacefull enjoyment of the property by the petitioner in various ways which are illegal and unlawful and have been held to be so by competent courts in criminal proceedings and enquiries held by the Executive Officers. As discussed above, the respondents other than respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been interfering with the possession and peacefull enjoyment of the property by the petitioner in various ways which are illegal and unlawful and have been held to be so by competent courts in criminal proceedings and enquiries held by the Executive Officers. The latest report of the Additional Collector also shows that not only the walls which were constructed repeatedly under the order of the Custodian Department have been demolished by the claimants non-applicants, but further they are doing criminal trespass and civil trespass repeatedly, entering the premises of the petitioner after demolition of the walls for the purpose of easing and doing other such questionable activities on the roof or the open portions of the petitioner and have been even indulging in eye teasing of the girls and women folk of the petitioner's family. In such circumstances, when the petitioner has knocked the doors of the criminal courts ant obtained orders under Section 107, Cr. P.C., but only to find that the non-petitioners-claimants remain unruffled and unaffected by such orders, should this Court close the doors of temple of justice to such a poor, harassed and humble citizen of this country. I am of the opinion that he has got a legal right to obtain an order, if a case is made out, as it has been done in this case for getting justice and the present one is a preeminently fit case where he should be allowed to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution. Though, it is not necessary, but it must be mentioned that after the judgment of (2) S. P. Gupta's case ( AIR 1982 SC 149 ), Asiad case (supra), and (3) Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Dal case ( AIR 1981 SC 1298 ), the dimensions and horizons of locus standi have been widened and the petitioner is fully covered in those dimensions also. In Asiad case Bhagawati J., observed as under:- "So far the courts have been used only for the purpose of vindicating the rights of the wealthy and the affiuent. It is only these privileged classes which have been able to approach the courts for protecting their vested interest ... Now for the first time the portals of the Court are being thrown open to the poor and down trodden ... It is only these privileged classes which have been able to approach the courts for protecting their vested interest ... Now for the first time the portals of the Court are being thrown open to the poor and down trodden ... (The Courts) must shed their character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. The time has now come when the courts must become the courts for the poor and the struggling masses of this country". 29. Prof. Madhava Menon in his note 'From the Editor' Journal of the Bar Council of India, vol. IX(3), 1982 p. (III), has commented on the above judgment favourably and for the purposes of this case, it would be appropriate to reproduce the deduction hereunder : "3. In Social justice litigation, the court will not be contented merely by declaring a law unconstitutional or an executive action invalid. The court will be looking for affirmative action that will bring immediate relief to the poor consistent with the spirit of the Constitution and the objects of welfare laws. It is here the court welcomes the initiatives of welfare agencies and co-operation of the public authorities. It is here the courts become saviours of the poor and partners with the other wings of the Government (executive and legislature) in the delivery of social justice, to the weaker sections of the community. The experiment, if successful, has the prospects of humanising the justice system, de-mystifying its processes and making it relevant to the large majority of the poor and downtrodden people of the country. The social welfare workers, public interest lawyers, legal aid committees and socio-legal research agencies have a useful supportive role in pursuing the orders of the Court through administrative and legislative processes and voluntary action programmes for improving the conditions of poverty and protecting the rights of the poor. 4. Access to justice is now made easier by stretching the rule of standing (locus standi) so as to permit any individual to initiate court action even by a letter alleging legal injury to poor, disabled or socially disadvantaged groups. The only condition is the bonafides of the petitioner and absence of extraneous motivation on his part. 4. Access to justice is now made easier by stretching the rule of standing (locus standi) so as to permit any individual to initiate court action even by a letter alleging legal injury to poor, disabled or socially disadvantaged groups. The only condition is the bonafides of the petitioner and absence of extraneous motivation on his part. Journalists, social workers, law teachers and activist lawyers are the petitioners in public interest cases most of which so far have been initiated through informal letters to judges on the basis of newspaper stories, research studies and personal investigations. The court has gone to the extent of collecting itself all facts by Commissioners appointed by it, of providing legal aid by court-sponsored lawyers and of evolving practical solutions to ameliorate the problems of the poor by affirmative action programmes. It has per force accepted functions which ought to have been performed by the legislative and executive branches in a Social Welfare State. Asiad workers case is a supreme example of this varied roles the court is called upon to under-take in giving justice to the poor." Prof. Menon has termed the jurisprudence evolved by Asiad worker's case as 'poverty jurisprudence' oriented to the delivery of the social justice through court. To put it in his own precise words, the conclusion is as under:- "The approach of the court a submitted, is a correct one though its implementation is again left largely to the wisdom of the Government authorities concerned. The Court has asked the Government to realise that enforcement of labour laws strictly is a constitutional obligation particularly in a welfare State like ours. The Court has directed the Magistracy to take labour violations with utmost severity and not to let employers continue to exploit the workmen. The Court enlarged the frontiers of fundamental rights to enable people, particularly the poor, to live with dignity and made access to courts easier and less expensive. The Court requested the other branches of Government to give tip adversary relationship in litigation involving the poor and invited them to co-operate with the courts in reaching justice to the poor. The Court waived many procedural requirements which impeded access to courts on the part of the poor and allowed any one including a stranger to conduct litigation on behalf of the poor. The Court waived many procedural requirements which impeded access to courts on the part of the poor and allowed any one including a stranger to conduct litigation on behalf of the poor. The court sought to gather by itself key facts on be half of the poor through court appointed commissioners and asked public spirited individuals to work as Ombudsmen to supervise implementation of welfare laws on behalf of the Court. The Court confessed to its feeling of guilt for being a willing partner in the use or abuse of its forum by the rich against the poor in the past and expressed its anxiety to be of help to the poor atleast in future. In whatever way it is viewed, the Asiad workers case is a milestone in judicial history heralding the advent of a 'poverty jurisprudence' oriented to, the delivery of social justic through courts. If the legal profession can rise to the occasion and make legal services available to the poor in every part of the country, we will soon have a truly, 'Social Justice State' in which courts will no more be exploitative institutions in the hands of the rich against the poor." 30. In view of the above, Gangaram who can be safely classified as one of the poor litigant awaiting benefit from 'poverty jurisprudence', can safely claim to enter the temples of justice, which no longer require a golden key nor any other hazard of iron gate exists now. I have got no hesitation in holding that on both counts, the petitioner, Gangaram, has full justification to approach this court for the dual remedies, mentioned above. It should not be forgotten that the repeated orders from the year 1958 to 1980 of the various executive authorities, Magistrates, Additional Collectors, Judicial courts and Custodians have failed to provide him any relief so far because of the non-petitioner's insistence on flouting them, one after the other, as per grievances mentioned in the report of Additional Collector, extracted above in Hindi. That being so, it is the legal, constitutional, sacred and pious duty of this court to provide him relief and evolve machinery for implementing that relief, as that relief otherwise would also remain on papers only. The objection of the non-petitioner in respect of locus standi is, therefore, rejected. 31. That being so, it is the legal, constitutional, sacred and pious duty of this court to provide him relief and evolve machinery for implementing that relief, as that relief otherwise would also remain on papers only. The objection of the non-petitioner in respect of locus standi is, therefore, rejected. 31. The result of the above discussion is that writ petition is accepted as indicated above with costs. The respondents No. 6 to 13 would pay the costs of Rs. 200/- to the petitioners and other respondents would not be required to pay any costs. *******