Judgment : R. A. Sharma, J. 1. This is another case of house grabbing by brazen act of lawlessness. Here the house is a double-Storeyed building of eleven room over a plot of land bearing Municipal No. 3/31, M. G. Marg, Civil Lines, Hari Paravat Ward, Khandari Road, Police Station Hari Parvat, Agra area about 850 sq. yards owned by the petitioner one of whom is the retired Commander of Indian Navy and the other is a widow aged about 78 years. On May 28, 1994 about fifty person armed with lathis and guns entered petitioners' house, manhandled the old lady, kicked her out and grabbed the house by brute force. Petitioners approached the district and police administration for help, but the same was ignored. This case was also taken up by the national press and the magazine "India Today" also published an article about house grabbing in the State of U. P. by members of the Rull in political party. In that article grabbing of the petitioners' house by the respondent No. 6, who is District President of the Samajwadi Party was also given prominence. The petitioners' cry for help and taking up of their case by the press was ignored by the district and police officials, who are supposed to provide protection to the people. Having failed to get relief from any quarter the petitioners filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 to restore the possession over their house to them. Further prayer for appropriate direction awarding the damages to the petitioner, has also been made. The facts regarding which there is no dispute, are as under. 2. TWO applications dated 6-4-1994 and 21-4-1994 were moved by Sri Paras Nath Rai, father of Sri C. P. Rai, Secretary of the Samajwadi Party, Agra and Sri Bahadur Singh, District President of the same party for allotment of the premises No. 25 (6/387) Khandari Road, Hari Parvat Ward, Police Station Hari Parvat, Agra, of which Sri Punjabi Singh and Sri Jal Singh are the owners. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, declared the said premises vacant and on 28-5-1994 allotted it to the District President, Samajwadi Party, Agra, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 6 to the writ petition. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, declared the said premises vacant and on 28-5-1994 allotted it to the District President, Samajwadi Party, Agra, who has been impleaded as respondent No. 6 to the writ petition. On 28th May, 1994 itself entry order in Form B was issued for handing over the possession of the allotted premises to the respondent No. 6 by 7th June, 1994. On that very' day (28-5-1994) instead of taking possession of the house allotted to him the respondent No. 6 with a mob of about fifty persons armed with lathis and guns forcibly entered and grabbed the petitioners' house and thrown out the owners by brute force. Petitioners' house is different and distinct from the house which was allotted to the respondent No. 6. Both are at a distance of about one furlong and bear distinct Municipal numbers. Their owners are also different. From the perusal of the record and pleadings of the parties it is quite clear that neither the petitioners' house was declared vacant under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, nor was any notice issued to the petitioners at any stage by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra or by any other authority in connection with declaration of the vacancy and the allotment. There is also no order allotting the petitioners' house to the respondent No. 6. The allotment order is regarding a different house bearing Municipal Number 25 (6/387) Khandari Road, Agra. After the petitioners were dispossessed they also filed a revision before the District Judged Agra against the allotment order. The District Judge granted an interim order, but the revision was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioners, because the allotment order issued in favour of respondent No. 6 did not relate to their house. There is no dispute regarding the facts mentioned above. Although the petitioners' house was never allotted to respondent No. 6, but the forcefully grabbed it under the garb of the allotment order which related to another house. After having occupied the petitioners' house forcibly the respondent No. 6 had refused to vacate it. 3. THE fact that the house has been grabbed by applying brute force by anti social elements after throwing out the petitioners' is not in dispute. In this connection paragraphs No. 4,5 and 6 of the writ petitions are reproduced below: " (4 ). After having occupied the petitioners' house forcibly the respondent No. 6 had refused to vacate it. 3. THE fact that the house has been grabbed by applying brute force by anti social elements after throwing out the petitioners' is not in dispute. In this connection paragraphs No. 4,5 and 6 of the writ petitions are reproduced below: " (4 ). That the petitioners have been deprived of the house in a manner which runs counter to the Rule of Law forming the very basis of any civilized society. THE acts from which the petitioners are aggrieved are the product and an out come of a nasty and ob noxious, nexus existing in the present times between the politicians, anti social elements and the bureaucrats at the local level. (5 ). That the petitioners which include the petitioner No. 1 a retired Commander of Indian Navy and petitioner No. 2 a widow aged about 78 years, have been forced to seek shelter of this Hon'ble Court because of the events which took place on 28th May, 1994. On the said date a mob of about 50 persons armed with lathis and guns forcefully entered the residential house of the petitioners. At that point of time the petitioner No. 2, was all alone in the house. She was man-handled and was virtually kicked out of her own house by sheer use of brute force. Even the personal belongings of the petitioners were not allowed to be removed and all the house hold goods belonging to the petitioners are being enjoyed by the present unauthorised occupants. (6 ). That these persons led by the persons claiming themselves to be the members of the Ruling Party tresspassed into the house of the petitioners. This deplorable act has been done under the banner of Samajwadi party which incidentally happens to be the political party forming the Government in the State of Uttar Pradesh at present and at the time when the acts complained of took place. " 4. THESE and other allegations made in the writ petition have not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavits. " 4. THESE and other allegations made in the writ petition have not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavits. Sri Yogesh Kumar, the District Magistrate, Agra, has filed a counter- affidavit on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the respondent No. 3 the City Magistrate, Agra, in which no reply to the para graphs 1 to 37 has been given, as according to the District Magistrate they relate to other respondent?, and need no reply from him. Another counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Rizwan Ahmad, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra, in which only reply of paragraph 17 of the writ petition containing the allegations regarding lodging of the report by the petitioners at the police station and in-action of the District Police, has been given. The third counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Atul Kumar, who was at that time the Home Secretary, Government of U. P. in which the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition have not been denied. In this counter-affidavit also the only thing stated is about the petitioners' complaint and giving of the instructions to the Deputy Inspector General of Police for action against the erring persons. Although the respondent No. 6 is represented in this Court by an advocate, but he has not filed any counter-affidavit controverting the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition. The result is that the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition have to be taken as correct. The learned Standing Counsel fairly conceded that the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed by them. A Division Bench of this Court in Waqf Alalaulad v. M/s. Sunderdas Daulatram and Sons, Special Appeal No. 954 of 1995, decided on March 13, 1996. : 1996 (1) JCLR 879 (All), has held that if a person has been unlawfully dispossessed from his property without any recourse to law by a private person writ is not to be issued to restore its possession to the person who has been dispossessed from it and the only remedy in such a case is the civil-suit. This Court further held that grabbing the property by Braen act of lawlessness is not a simple case of dispossessing a person from his property and in such a case the State has to come to the rescue of the victims. This Court further held that grabbing the property by Braen act of lawlessness is not a simple case of dispossessing a person from his property and in such a case the State has to come to the rescue of the victims. The relevant extract from the said judgment of this Court is reproduced below : "but dispossession a person from his property otherwise than in due course of law is different from grabbing the property by terrorising the person in possession. To capture the property forcibly by creating terror by applying brute force is not a simple case of dispossessing a person from property. In a country governed by rule of law no person can be deprived of his life, liberty and property by third degree methods, such as terrorising and man-handling the person concerned. In such a case not only the person who has been dispossessed of his property but the Society itself is taken to ransom by brute force. Such an act creates terror in the minds of the people and has the effect of shaking the social fabrics of the society. These acts also hit and damage the authority of the Government with the result that the public order, peace and tranguility of the society are disturbed. In such cases it is the duty of the Government to come to the rescue of the persons who are threatened or have been dispossessed from their property by Brazen act of lawlessness. " 5. THIS Court relying on Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480 also held that the Government has the sovereign power of guardianship over the persons under disability and it is its duty to protect them. In this connection it was held as under: "the position of the Government being that of parent it has to act, intervene and protect lives, liberty and property of the people when threatened or invaded. Its duty is much greater in the case of a person under disability. A person is under disability not only when he suffers from physical or legal infirmities, but also when he is unable to stand up and protect his right and property from invasion by or with the help of anti social elements, Mafias and terrorists. Its duty is much greater in the case of a person under disability. A person is under disability not only when he suffers from physical or legal infirmities, but also when he is unable to stand up and protect his right and property from invasion by or with the help of anti social elements, Mafias and terrorists. In such a case it is not only duty of the Government to protect a person in distress and restore the possession of his property to him, but it is also the duty of this Court, when approached, to pass appropriate orders and issue necessary directions to the Government to protect his life, liberty and property and, when found necessary, to restore him the posses sion of his property. " 6. THIS Court also relied upon the decision in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh andanr., 1996 (1) JT SC 163 : 1996 (1) JCLR 625 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as under: "we are a country governed by the Rule of Law, Our constitution confers certain rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human-being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit any body or group of persons e. g. the AAPSU to threaten the Chakmas to leave the State, failing which they would be forced to do so. No State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons, it is duty bound to protect the threatened i group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to be dealt within accordance with law. The State Government must Act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well-being of Chakmas residing in the Stated without being inhibited by local politics. Those giving such threats would be liable to be dealt within accordance with law. The State Government must Act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well-being of Chakmas residing in the Stated without being inhibited by local politics. " This Court accordingly in the case of Waqf Alalaulad (supra) laid down that a writ petition for protecting a person's property and liberty and even for restoration of possession of the property to the person who has been dispossessed by anti social elements by brute force, is maintainable. In this connection this Court has observed as under: "when,a person, who has been dispossessed from his property by Brazen Acts of lawlessness by or with the help of anti social elements, approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court does not exercise its power to enforce the contractual and legal obligations of the parties. It only directs the Government to enforce the Rule of Law and to protect the oves, liberty and the properties of the people, and, if found necessary, to restore the possession of the property to the person who has been dispossessed therefrom, leaving it open to the parties to get their rights adjudicated through Civil Court. To tell a person whose property has been forcibly captured and seized by or with the help of anti social elements, to file a suit for its recovery and be on the streets till the suit is decided by the test Court, is nothing but slapping a person in distress. " 7. IN the instant case there is no dispute that the respondent No. 6 grabbed the house belonging to the petitioners with the help of anti social elements by Brazen act of lawlessness. There was no justification for the respondent No. 6 to forcibly occupy the petitioners' house. The State machinery also failed to provide protection to the petitioners inspite of their requests. The grievance of the petitioners, to the effect that the administration including the police deliberately ignored their request for help and further that some of the Government officials were acting in collusion with the respondent No. 6, cannot be said to be without substance, in view of the averments made in writ petition which have almost remained uncontroverted. 8. The grievance of the petitioners, to the effect that the administration including the police deliberately ignored their request for help and further that some of the Government officials were acting in collusion with the respondent No. 6, cannot be said to be without substance, in view of the averments made in writ petition which have almost remained uncontroverted. 8. FOR the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs, which, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, is assessed at Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand), which will be paid by the respondent No. 6, to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. In case this costs is not paid to the petitioners within the time specified above the District Magistrate, Agra, is directed to recover it is arrears of land revenue from the respondent Nos. 6 and pay the same to the petitioners thereafter forthwith. The respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are also directed to have the possession of the petitioners' house mentioned before restored io them after ejecting the persons including the respondent No. 6 therefrom forthwith. If necessary the respondents will use the police force for the said purpose. 2. The petitioners are also entitled to the damages from the respondent No. 6 for use and occupation of their house illegally by him. We accordingly permit the petitioners to move an application for fixation of the damages before the District Judge, Agra, who shall either himself determine it or get it determined by any other judicial officer of his Judgeship not below the rank of the Additional District Judge after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the respondent No. 6, within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him. The amount of damages so determined shall also be paid to the petitioners by the respondent No. 6 within two months of the date of determination. If the respondent No. 6 fails to pay the damages within the time specified above, it will also be recovered by the District Magistrate, Agra, from him as arrears or land revenue and the same shall be paid to the petitioners immediately thereafter. Petition allowed.