JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. At the request of learned advocates for the parties as hearing for grant of interim relief was to take the same time, the present Letters Patent Appeal is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this judgment and order. 2. Manav Kendra Education Trust - a Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act is before this Court through its Chairman, Jayendra V. Sharma. The appellant is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8939 of 2013; whereby, the learned Single Judge is pleased to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and rejected the petition and notice was discharged. 3. To appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, it will be appropriate to look into the prayers made in the petition. Prayers are quoted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same are reproduced for the ready perusal. 3. To appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, it will be appropriate to look into the prayers made in the petition. Prayers are quoted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same are reproduced for the ready perusal. “23(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the highhanded action of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 - Collector and DSP, Vadodara in giving police assistance to the respondent No.4 for forcefully entering the premises of the petitioner Educational Trust; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold that the action of the respondent No.3 - DSP, Vadodara in giving police protection to the respondent No.4 as per the say of the Collector, Vadodara, which is apparently for taking away the peaceful possession of the petitioner Trust is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondent No.3 - DSP, Vadodara to immediately withdraw the police protection given to the respondent No.4 and to assist the petitioner and provide necessary protection to the petitioner regarding occupying and continuing with the peaceful possession and educational activity at the premises in question where the school is run by the petitioner; (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondent No.3 - DSP, Vadodara to give all assistance to the petitioner Trust to continue in peacefully occupying the premises in question and running the School activities without any disturbance by the respondent No.4 Trust; 23(d) and further be pleased to direct respondent no.2 and 3 to remove the persons who have illegally entered into the school premises with the help of police due to illegal and arbitrary action of respondent nos.2 and 3; (amendment carried out as per Court's order dated 23.05.2013) (E) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 - DSP, Vadodara to immediately withdraw the police protection given to the respondent No.4 and to assist the petitioner and provide necessary protection to the petitioner for continuing with the peaceful possession and running its educational activity at the premises in question; 23(ee) during the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent No.4 or its servants, agents etc. from entering into the premises in question and creating nuisance at the said premises where Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School is run and managed by the petitioner and further be pleased to restrain the respondent no.4 or its servants, agents etc. from obstructing the petitioner in any manner whatsoever for running and managing the said school in a peaceful manner. (amendment carried out as per Court's order dated 23.5.2013.) (F) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case”. (Emphasis supplied). 4. From the aforesaid prayers, it can be noted that the case of the appellant-original petitioner is that they were in possession of premises in question and that they are dispossessed by respondent No.4-Trust by taking assistance of police protection provided at the behest of respondent No.2 by respondent No.3. 5. At this juncture, it will be necessary to go to the facts set out in the petition. The facts are set out in paragraph No.4 onwards in the petition. Relevant paras which are reproduced for ready perusal: “(4) It is respectfully stated and submitted that the petitioner is an Educational Trust and it runs an educational institution in the name of 'Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School'. The said institution is running the school at Village: Kandari, Tal. Karjan, District: Vadodara since 1989 and it imparts education starting from K.G. to Standard 12th. The said 'Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School' is registered with C.B.S.E., New Delhi. The said school is also running educational as well as general activities for the benefit of the students. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure-A is the copy of the leaflet of the said school 'Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School'. (5) It is respectfully stated and submitted that since respondent No.4 Trust was not in a position to manage the Educational institution i.e. 'Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School', it created a separate Trust for the said purpose i.e. the petitioner Trust. For the said purpose, Lease Agreement was executed by the petitioner Trust and the respondent No.4 Trust. The description of the land wherein the School is located is mentioned in the Lease Agreement. The land wherein the school is located is initially given to the petitioner Trust for 10 years with an extension clause in the Agreement. For the said purpose, Lease Agreement was executed by the petitioner Trust and the respondent No.4 Trust. The description of the land wherein the School is located is mentioned in the Lease Agreement. The land wherein the school is located is initially given to the petitioner Trust for 10 years with an extension clause in the Agreement. As per the lease Agreement, the lessee i.e. the petitioner Trust herein has to pay Rs. 7 Lacs p.a. to the respondent No.4 Trust which amount is regularly paid by the petitioner Trust to the respondent No.4. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure-B is the copy of the Lease Agreement.....”. (Emphasis supplied). 6. These two paragraphs are relevant for the purpose to decide the controversy involved in the matter, namely, the petitioner being dispossessed by respondent No.4 by taking assistance of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the Collector and DSP. 7. At the outset, it is made clear that the controversy for consideration of this Court is only whether the petitioner is deprived of the possession by respondent No.4 without taking recourse to the remedy recognised under the law. It is also made clear that for deciding this controversy, in light of the settled legal position, it does not require to take into consideration by this Court whether the petitioner-Trust was lawfully on the land or that petitioner-Trust had any right to be on the land in question. This Court is conscious of the fact that the law laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court is that even in the case of rank trespasser, owner of the land cannot take law on its own hand and cannot evict trespasser without taking recourse to the remedy known to law. This is required to be clarified because learned senior advocate, Mr. Vakharia with all vehemence at his command tried to convince this Court on the point that the petitioner-Trust is having no right whatsoever to be on the land because assuming for the sake of argument that the land in question was leased out by respondent No.4 to the petitioner-Trust but then that lease has expired long back. 8. Learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 made it clear to the Court that none of his submissions be construed to mean that respondent No.4-Trust executed any lease deed in favour of petitioner-Trust. 8. Learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 made it clear to the Court that none of his submissions be construed to mean that respondent No.4-Trust executed any lease deed in favour of petitioner-Trust. Learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 was refusing to identify the petitioner-Trust at all and the learned Senior advocate for respondent No.4 went to the extent, saying that including the lease deed and the application filed seeking police protection were not drafted by the concerned person with the consent and knowledge of the contents of the same and therefore, even those two documents are non-existent. Learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 was not able to satisfy this Court that prior to a particular date (i.e. giving of an application), respondent No.4 was in possession of the land in question and that petitioner-Trust was not in possession. Today, when the petitioner-Trust is before this Court requesting that status-quo ante (on the date prior to filing of that application) be restored the respondent No.4 is opposing that prayer tooth and nail. 9. In present Letters Patent Appeal, one Civil Application for stay is filed praying that: “41(A) Your Lordship may be pleased to direct opponent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to remove the persons (including opponent No.4 herein) who have illegally entered into the school premises and other properties covered in lease deed dated 3.2.1997 with help of police due to illegal and arbitrary action of opponent Nos. 2 and 3; (B) Your Lordship may be pleased to restrain opponent No.4 or its servants, agents, etc. from entering into the premises in question and creating nuisance at the said premises where Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School is run and managed by the applicant-Trust and further be pleased to restrain opponent No.4 or its servants, agents, etc. from obstructing the applicant in any manner whatsoever for running and managing the said school in a peaceful manner”. 10. The facts as set out in petition memo, the present applicant/appellant-original petitioner was in possession of the premises in question prior to they were dispossessed by Respondent No.4 on 18.5.2013. In this regard, the averments made in the petition are reproduced for perusal. 10. The facts as set out in petition memo, the present applicant/appellant-original petitioner was in possession of the premises in question prior to they were dispossessed by Respondent No.4 on 18.5.2013. In this regard, the averments made in the petition are reproduced for perusal. (9) It is respectfully stated and submitted that in the meanwhile, in order to induct name of new Trustees, the respondent No.4 had also filed Change Report before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vadodara which application was initially rejected by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. However, in appeal, the matter was remanded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner and after remand, the Assistant Charity Commissioner granted the Change Report by an ex-parte order. It is further submitted that the petitioner-Trust has also filed Change Report to include names of Trustees suggested by the petitioner-Trust which application was rejected. Accordingly, both the orders of the Assistant Charity Commissioner are challenged by the Trustees of the respondent No.4-Trust by preferring Appeal Nos.12 and 13 of 2012 which appeals are pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara. However, so far as the present petitioner-Trust is concerned, it has no connection with the internal management of the respondent No.4-Trust and this fact is only stated to highlight the grievance of the petitioner-Trust that serious dispute is going on amongst the Trustees of the respondent No.4- Trust. As stated earlier, so far as the petitioner-Trust is concerned, it is managing the Educational activity of 'Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School' and it has spent large amount even for constructing new buildings and its application to give on lease for a further period is also pending before the Charity Commissioner. (10) It is respectfully stated and submitted that at present, the petitioner-Trust is undertaking process of admission as the new academic year is going on start from June 2013 and even during vacation, the admission process is to be continued on regular basis before the School reopens after summer vacation. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner in this petition is not highlighting any dispute as the proceedings are pending before the Charity Commissioner. Even after expiry of the lease period, the respondent No.4 is entitled to get back the possession is also not a matter which is required to be considered at this stage as appropriate forum will consider the said issue. Even after expiry of the lease period, the respondent No.4 is entitled to get back the possession is also not a matter which is required to be considered at this stage as appropriate forum will consider the said issue. However, unfortunately, since some of the office bearers or alleged Trustees of the respondent No.4-Trust are acting in a highhanded manner and since they are disturbing the petitioner-Trust from carrying on its activity in a peaceful manner, the petitioner Trust had, in fact, in the past in February 2013, requested the DSP, Vadodara to provide police protection as the respondent No.4-Trust wanted to have its so called Trustees meeting in the school campus and as the same was to affect the education of the school, the petitioner Trust sought for police protection which was granted to the petitioner-Trust for few days. (11) It is respectfully stated and submitted that in spite of the aforesaid facts, the so-called Trustee of the respondent No.4-Trust i.e. Baljisingh on 18.5.2013 in a high-handed manner and perhaps without informing correct facts to the Collector, Vadodara tried to enter the premises in question and tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner-Trust with the help of Police which police protection seems to have been granted by the DSP, Vadodara at the instance of the Collector, Vadodara. As a matter of fact, the DSP, Vadodara could not have granted the police protection to the respondent No.4 in the matter of such a dispute which is purely of a civil nature going on and especially when there is serious dispute amongst the Trustees of the Respondent No.4-Trust for which appeal is pending. It is not a case where the respondent No.4 on his own comes to the premises and in that case, the petitioner can take appropriate steps against the respondent No.4 before the appropriate Forum. However, unfortunately, behind the back of the petitioner-Trust, the respondent No.4 approached the Collector, Vadodara and the Collector, Vadodara has asked the DSP, Vadodara to allow the respondent No.4 to enter the premises with the police help. However, unfortunately, behind the back of the petitioner-Trust, the respondent No.4 approached the Collector, Vadodara and the Collector, Vadodara has asked the DSP, Vadodara to allow the respondent No.4 to enter the premises with the police help. As soon as this fact came to the notice of the Trustees of the petitioner Trust, they immediately approached the DSP, Vadodara and they were informed by the DSP that on the instructions of the Collector, Vadodara he has sent the police to assist respondent No.4 to forcibly enter the school premises i.e. 'Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School'. (12) It is respectfully stated and submitted that Collector, Vadodara is in no way concerned to assist either side when the dispute is of a civil in nature and is at large before the Charity Commissioner in connection with whether permission to file a suit is to be granted or not and appeal against the Change Reports are also pending. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner-Trust is not concerned with the internal dispute of the respondent No.4-Trust but broadly, the petitioner-Trust is entitled to retain its possession and Collector, Vadodara has absolutely no jurisdiction in any manner to assist the respondent No.4 and that too without hearing the petitioner in such a manner. Unfortunately, when police enters somebody's premises in a highhanded manner, the citizen is always afraid. In fact, the Police personnel accompanied the respondent No.4 and forcibly entered the premises in question and threatened the staff of the school as well as Principal of the School and Security personnel to open the gate. It is submitted that in a society governed by law, nobody is entitled to take law in their own hands, especially by the Police authorities. It is required to be noted that even though the appeals against the Change Reports are pending, even if it is filed by some of the so called Trustees of the respondent No.4 Trust, so far as the petitioner-Trust is concerned, it is a different entity altogether and it is not open for the respondent No.4, therefore, to try to disturb the possession forcefully in such a manner and try to disturb the possession with the help of police without following the due procedure of law. If the respondent No.4-Trust has any grievance against the possession of the petitioner-Trust, it has to take appropriate steps in accordance with law, for which permission to file suit is also sought for by some of the so called Trustees of the respondent No.4-Trust which application is still pending....” 11. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the appellant was in possession of the property in question. Their case is that they were in possession pursuant to a lease deed. That lease deed did have extension clause but at present,the position is that lease deed has expired and it has not been extended. That being so, the Court has to consider whether the petitioner has approached this Court with true facts and whether respondent No.4 is contesting the petition by setting out the true facts. In the present case, the fact that the respondent No.4 has taken a stand of not knowing the petitioner-Trust is something shocking and disturbing. It is really painful that though respondent No.4 is a Trust and there is nothing personal for anybody, learned advocate for respondent No.4 has instructions to argue that respondent No.4-Trust does not know who the petitioner-Trust is and learned Senior advocate is also instructed to argue to deny the existence of the lease deed and application and also to state that respondent No.4 has no knowledge about the contents of either lease deed or the application given to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Such an approach not only deserves to be deprecated but genuinely puts Court on guard while appreciating such submissions made on behalf of either party. 12. The appellant has narrated the entire incident of 18th May, 2013 in petition. For ready perusal, it reads as under: 13. “It is respectfully stated and submitted that at present, the School activity is going on in a smooth manner and it has been hampered since 18.5.2013. Therefore, the petitioner-Trust gave an application to the DSP, Vadodara pointing out as to why and on what basis, the said Baljitsingh so called trustee the respondent No.4-Trust obtained police protection and illegally tried to enter the premises in question. Therefore, the petitioner-Trust gave an application to the DSP, Vadodara pointing out as to why and on what basis, the said Baljitsingh so called trustee the respondent No.4-Trust obtained police protection and illegally tried to enter the premises in question. A copy of application dated 18.5.2013 submitted by the petitioner to the DSP, Vadodara is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D. A copy of application dated 18.5.2013 submitted by the petitioner to the DIG is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-E. A copy of application dated 18.5.2013 submitted by the petitioner to the Collector, Vadodara is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-F...” 13. At this juncture, the Court feels appropriate to note and mention that the contents of this application makes it clear that respondent No.4 was not in possession of the property in question and that they wanted police protection as they wanted to enter the disputed land and as noted herein above, the fact is that respondent No.4-Trust has entered into the disputed premises on 18.5.2013. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to look the contents of Annexure-D, E and F. Annexure-D is at page No.51, it is in vernacular, its dated 18.5.2013: It is given by Jayendra V.Sharma, Chairman. It is mentioned along with relevant facts that today i.e. 18.5.2013 with some ill motive Baljit Singh with crowd accompanied by P.I. had come and wanted to enter the school campus. The signatory had asked for order if any or any authority for that purpose, no such order was shown and Baljit Singh and the crowd entered the school campus giving threats. Thereafter, Baljit Singh left. Therefore, the complaint be recorded and necessary actions be taken. So far as Annexure-E is concerned its on page No.52, it is addressed to Collector in that application in addition to what is stated herein above, it is mentioned that Director of Petitioner-Trust, Mr. Manmohan Sharma was arrested and taken to Karjan Police Station. Thereafter with the staff of the petitioner-Trust, said Baljit Singh and the crowd indulged into a scuffle and therefore, this application is filed to provide armed police Bandobast for the safety of the Manav Kendra Education Trust Campus. Along with application to the Collector, a copy of proposed suit to be filed, placed before the Joint Charity Commissioner was also annexed as Annexure-F at page No.78. Along with application to the Collector, a copy of proposed suit to be filed, placed before the Joint Charity Commissioner was also annexed as Annexure-F at page No.78. The said application is almost the same as that of Annexure-D. On the conjoint reading of the contents of these three applications makes it clear that respondent No.4-Trust entered the premises on 18.5.2013 under the protection of police personnel which were provided pursuant to the application made by respondent No.4-Trust. 14. Coming to the application filed by respondent No.4- Trust which will make it clear that the case of respondent No.4-Trust is that they are not in possession of the premises and they wanted to enter the premises in question and for that purpose, they made this application to the District Collector and District Magistrate. A copy is produced along with affidavit-in-reply filed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Vadodara affirmed on 20th May, 2013 as Annexure-R1. Subject of this application is Request to provide police protection to enter self property illegally occupied by unscrupulous elements and take possession of the same. (Emphasis supplied). 15. Learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 is instructed to argue that this application is made either outside the knowledge of the respondent No.4 or at-least the contents are not as per the instructions of respondent No.4. This is something which cannot be digested and not only digested but it cannot be swallowed. The very fact that the request is made to District Collector and District Magistrate for providing police protection and the object is very much articulated. “To enter the self property illegally occupied by unscrupulous elements and take possession of the same”. (Emphasis supplied). 16. Possibly nothing can be argued in support of respondent No.4 who is out to defend his highhanded, illegal action of entering into the property without taking recourse to the remedy known to law. But still, learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 argued the matter with all vehemence at his command submitting that petitioner-Trust is not entitled to be on the land in question, even assuming for the sake of arguments, there was any lease deed in his favour. 17. But still, learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 argued the matter with all vehemence at his command submitting that petitioner-Trust is not entitled to be on the land in question, even assuming for the sake of arguments, there was any lease deed in his favour. 17. This Court again reminds itself about the controversy involved in the matter and the question which is required to be decided by this Court i.e. whether on the material on record this Court is convinced of the fact that petitioner-Trust is dispossessed by respondent No.4 on 18.5.2013 taking help/assistance of police personnel. This Court is not called upon to decide whether petitioner-Trust is having any legal right on that land. It is made clear that even while the Court decides that the petitioner-Trust is wrongfully dispossessed, it is not to be construed to mean that the Court has pronounced on the legal rights of petitioner-Trust. This country is governed by rule of law and no person can be above law. 18. The reading of the application makes it clear that the case of the respondent No.4-Trust is that the petitioner-Trust is not known to it: To that extent, respondent No.4 has not disclosed the true facts to the learned senior advocate to enable him to argue the matter in the manner in which it is required. The opening paragraph of this application says that: “I, Param Sant, Baljit Singh, Chairman of the trust on behalf of other legal trustees of Manav Kendra Trust, Kandari, Taluka: Karjan, NH-8, as declared by the honourable Assistant Charity Commissioner by order No.160/2012 dated June 201 (figure is missing) (copy of order attached for your ready perusal) wish to lay down the following for your kind consideration and favourable action. The Chairman, Param Sant Baljit Singh, wished to conduct the meeting of the Trustees on 10th February, 2013 for which notice was issued to all the 9 trustees from different parts of India. Five of the trustees showed up for the meeting. The venue of the meeting declared was Manav Kendra Kandari, NH-8, Taluka-Karjan, District: Vadodara, Gujarat. When all the present trustees requested the personnel present inside to open the gate for them to enter the premises of the said trust, it was denied. To our surprise, we also noticed that there were so many other personnel inside the premises watching from distance towards the gate. When all the present trustees requested the personnel present inside to open the gate for them to enter the premises of the said trust, it was denied. To our surprise, we also noticed that there were so many other personnel inside the premises watching from distance towards the gate. Despite our requesting number of times the gate was never open for us to enter to conduct the meeting inside the premises of the property of which we all trustees legally are responsible to operate and maintain the said property as per the norms laid in the charter of the trust. For the wrongfully denied entry by the unscrupulous elements to legal trustees, a complaint with the superintendent of police (Rural Area) Vadodara and Karjan Police Station was registered on 14th Feb and 10th Feb 2013 respectively and copy of the same is attached for your ready perusal. One of our main concern is that late vide Chairman Mr. V.P. Sharma was arrested from inside the premises of Manav Kendra Kandari (Newspaper cutting attached) after the raid conducted by the state railway and local police. Since part of the property of the said trust, Gyan Mandir School, was leased (the lease expired in Jan 2007 and this months to illegal possession of property) to a trust called Manav Kendra Education Trust which is headed and managed by Mr. J.V. Sharma, one of the son of late Mr. V.P. Sharma, there may be other persons of criminal nature inside the property premises or illegal activities going on and for all this we all the trustees would be held, if comes the time, by the authorities since we are the legal trustees as declared by the Assistance Charity Commissioner by Order No.160/2012 dated June,2012. Since we, the legal trustees, are legally responsible to ensure the safety and sanctity of the property of the Manav Kendra Kandari Trust, the same cannot be ensured by us as they, with the help of unsocial elements, are not allowing us to take the possession of the property and documents of the trust have our few personnel on the property. The sequence of events, ever since we were inducted as trustees, is also attached for your ready perusal. The sequence of events, ever since we were inducted as trustees, is also attached for your ready perusal. We all the trustees pray to your self that we must be helped whichever way possible, to take over the possession of the property of the trust including the documents pertaining to the Manav Kendra Kandari Trust (from Mr. Mahender V. Sharma, son of late Mr. V.P. Sharma, one of the trustee of the said trust, resident of 43/B, Rambaug Society, Near Makarpura Bus Depot, Vadodara-10) and possession and management of Gyan Mandir School (part of the property of Manav Kendra Trust, Kandari, which was leased and the lease has expired on Jan.2007) from Mr. Jayendra V. Sharma, son of late Mr. V.P. Sharma (residence address same as of Mr. Mahendra V. Sharma) enabling us to discharge our legal responsibilities for which we will be highly obliged and thankful to you. We also request to you to provide us the police protection to protect the trust property and persons present in the premises and to thwart any wrongful attempt to harm the same by Mr. Mahendra Sharma, Jayendra Sharma and Rajendra Sharma, the three brothers, sons of late, Mr. V.P. Sharma, and their associates....” (Emphasis supplied). 19. On plain reading of this application, there cannot be any doubt that the respondent No.4 claims to be out of possession of the property and admits that property is in possession of the persons named therein along with other persons of criminal nature and request is made that we should be provided police protection to take the possession of the property. 20. Learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 invited the attention of the Court to various provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, and various decisions to emphatically submit that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief to the petitioner-Trust and the petitioner-Trust has no legal right to be on the land. (Emphasis supplied) 21. This Court again reiterates that this Court is not deciding whether the petitioner-Trust has any legal right on the land. This Court is deciding only and only question that whether on or before 18.5.2013, the petitioner was in possession of the property or not and whether the respondent No.4-Trust has taken over the possession by a method which is not known to law. This Court is deciding only and only question that whether on or before 18.5.2013, the petitioner was in possession of the property or not and whether the respondent No.4-Trust has taken over the possession by a method which is not known to law. This Court on consideration of the material on record has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-Trust is dispossessed of the property in a manner which is not known to the law and therefore, the relief prayed for by the petitioner is required to be granted. 22. Learned senior advocate for the respondent No.4 vehemently submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that respondent No.4 -Trust did execute a lease deed in favour of the petitioner-Trust but then there is no description of the property in that lease deed and that being so, lease deed is 'non existent' in the eye of law because in absence of description of the property, it does not convey any right in favour of petitioner-Trust. In fact, learned senior advocate was instructed to state that if the petitioner-Trust is able to point out the description of the property that will be a surprise to respondent No.4. 23. In this regard, the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner-Trust invited the attention of the Court to the lease deed in question-Annexure-B page 34: Title of the document is “Lease Agreement between Lessor : Manav Kendra, Kandari, Dist. Vadodara AND Lessee: Manav Kendra Education Trust, Kandari, Dist. Vadodara”. It will be appropriate here to mention that this lease deed is executed on a Non Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs. 90,000/-. Let there be no misunderstanding as to why the Court is making a mention of the amount of the Stamp Paper. The reason for mentioning the amount is that had it been a lease deed on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. One can give benefit of doubt and can think of having some substance in the submissions made by learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 who claims that it does not know about the lease deed. When a lease deed is on a stamp paper of Rs. 90,000/-, presumption will be that both the parties must have arrived at a consensus to execute such lease deed but then, again it does not affect the merits of the dispute which arises for determination before this Court in this proceedings. When a lease deed is on a stamp paper of Rs. 90,000/-, presumption will be that both the parties must have arrived at a consensus to execute such lease deed but then, again it does not affect the merits of the dispute which arises for determination before this Court in this proceedings. Coming to the description of the lease property, it is mentioned in the relevant paragraphs that: “Whereas, Manav Kendra, Kandari (herein after referred to as Lessor) of the properties is established at Village: Kandari and is owner of land and all immovable properties constructed and existing thereon along with furnitures, fixtures and fittings on this date. The description of the properties and facilities therein are known to both the parties. And Whereas, Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School established in June, 1989 and affiliated with CBSE, New Delhi vide Code No.4316 was managed upto this date by Manav Kendra Kandari (Lessor). And Whereas Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School which is to be managed by Manav Kendra Education Trust (herein after referred to as Lessee), is using the properties of the Lessor with electrification, facilities, furnitures, fixtures & fittings since its inceptions in June, 1989 as educational institution for the purpose of school activities. And Whereas, the Lessor is aware of the fact that the properties and facilities constructed during the last five years are made utilising surplus fund generated from affairs of Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School. And Whereas the Lessor is aware that Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School has recently commenced classes of Std. XII and have obtained the status of a Senior Secondary School. And Whereas both the Lessor & Lessee have unanimously decided to keep the organisation of the said school as a separate entity and to make the Lessor free from the responsibilities of management of the school so as to pursue the other aims, objects and mission of Manav Kendra. And Whereas the Lessor is desirous of leasing the properties of the Manav Kendra at Kandari to the Lessee on lease in order that the Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School can function smoothly as separate entity. And Whereas the Lessor is desirous of leasing the properties of the Manav Kendra at Kandari to the Lessee on lease in order that the Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School can function smoothly as separate entity. Now This Lease Deed of Properties of Manav Kendra Between Lessor & Lessee Witnesseth As Under: (1) That land and all immovable properties constructed or existing on this date are leased to the Lessee on lease for the period of 10 years (Ten years) w.e.f. 1.1.1997 subject to further extension in lease period as stated herein after. (2) THAT the Lessee shall pay rent Rs. 7.00 Lacs (Rupees Seven Lacs Only) per annum payable in maximum two instalments. The Lease rent shall be reviewed after every five years as per mutual agreement by Lessor & Lessee....” (Emphasis supplied). 24. This condition No.2 is required to be mentioned for the purpose that at one stage, the learned Senior advocate appearing for respondent No.4 was instructed to make statement before this Court that lessee has not paid that amount. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner offered the bank entries for perusal to satisfy this Court and to learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 that amount is duly paid till date. This is only to bring on record that the respondent No.4 has decided and accordingly instructed the learned senior advocate to take all possible tenable, untenable, reasonable, unreasonable contentions in the matter. 25. Thus, from the aforesaid averments made in the Lease Deed, the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner-Trust are found having substance and the same are corroborated by the averments made in the application filed by the respondent No.4-Trust. 26. Learned senior advocate for the respondent No.4 also submitted that respondent No.4 being a Trust and the property being the Trust property, the respondent No.4 could not have leased the property to the petitioner-Trust and even on that ground, this Court should held that the lease transaction is illegal and as a necessary corollary the possession of the petitioner-Trust is also illegal. Now when the possession is illegal, the petitioner-Trust is not entitled to any relief from this Court. 27. This Court again has to reiterate the question which is for consideration of this Court is not 'the legality of the possession' which was with the petitioner-Trust on or before 18/5/2013. Now when the possession is illegal, the petitioner-Trust is not entitled to any relief from this Court. 27. This Court again has to reiterate the question which is for consideration of this Court is not 'the legality of the possession' which was with the petitioner-Trust on or before 18/5/2013. Let it be clear that any order passed by this Court is not to be construed to mean that this Court has held anything in favour of the petitioner-Trust qua the legality of the possession of the petitioner-Trust. This Court is of considered opinion that the parties have to get their rights adjudicated in an appropriate forum. Unless, those rights are adjudicated and there is an order of a Competent Court for evicting the petitioner-Trust from the premises, respondent No.4 Trust can not take law in its hand and can not evict the petitioner-Trust. That being so, the act of respondent No.4 of dispossessing the petitioner-Trust of the premises by taking law in its hand is illegal and deserves to be set aside by restoring the 'status-quo ante'. 28. Learned senior advocate appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that in the alternative the case of the respondent No.4 is that if at all the petitioner-Trust had any right, then it was only permissible use of the premises for running and managing the school and possession was never handed over to the petitioner-Trust. 29. On perusal of the lease deed and on perusal of the contents of the application, the Court is not able to accept this submission of learned senior advocate for respondent No.4. Besides the respondent No.4 though granted an opportunity to work out an amicable-workable solution it has not only backed out but seen to it that learned senior advocate does not appear in the matter. 30. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 made a categorical statement that police authorities have no interest whatsoever in the matter of possession and police authorities be not understood to have taken any stand on the question of possession. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that the Court may pass order in accordance with law in light of the material on record. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the said order will be complied with. It is submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that the Court may pass order in accordance with law in light of the material on record. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the said order will be complied with. Learned Additional Advocate General did make available a C.D.; wherein, according to the police authorities, the incident of 18th May, 2013 was recorded. It was stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that the recording in the C.D. shows that the respondent No.4 particularly Param Sant, Baljit Singh ji reached the property. He was welcomed by the people present there and the people did seek blessings from Param Sant, Baljit Singh Ji. Learned Additional Advocate General also stated that if the Court will like to see the contents of the C.D. that can be arranged, the Court declined to see the contents of the C.D. for the simple reason that the controversy has to be decided on the basis of the record. The petitioner-Trust is complaining to this Court in no uncertain terms that petitioner-Trust is dispossessed on and from 18th May, 2013. The contents of the application dated Nil a copy of which is produced at Annexure-R1 Page 86 are that respondent No.4 wanted to enter the property which is described 'self property' and it is also stated that 'the property is illegally occupied by unscrupulous elements and that they want to take possession of the same'. In the face of these documents, the contents of CD are not going to be of any help to decide the controversy. Beside there is another documentary evidence which is placed on record along with affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 affirmed by one Ms. Usha Rada, In-charge District Superintendent of Police, Vadodara, on 29th May, 2013. The document is at Annexure-VII page No.100. It is an application given by 'signature illegible'. Below, the second signature name mentioned is. 'Chairman, Sant Shri. Baljit Sinhji'. In this application, it is mentioned that: I, Param Sant Baljit Singhji Maharaj, resident of 21, Rambag Society, Makarpura Road, Vadodara, Aged about 50 years, Chairman of Manav Kendra Kandari Trust, Kandari, Mobile No.099630 59550 is to request that today, I had gone to Manav Kendra Kandari along with disciples at that time, Man-Mohan Banwarilal Sharma resident of Vijay Nagar Society, Talsani, Vadodara stopped us from entering the Institution. We, therefore, requested that I am the Chairman of the Institution and you cannot stop us in this illegal manner. On this he was excited and he behaved in a manner which does not befit to common people and he shouted and also threatened us to beat. Thus, I have apprehension to my life from these persons. I have also apprehension of breach of peace from these persons. Therefore, you are requested to do the needful in the matter. 18/5/2013. Signature: Illegible. 31. What is important is that in this application, it is mentioned that following employees of Manav Kendra Education Trust school are residing in the premises, namely, (1) Vihol Mahendrasinh Dhansinh (2) Raval Jayeshbhai Narendrabhai with wife and 2 children (3) Padmavati Vijayendra Sharma (4) Jyotiben Shah (5) Lalanya Bhattacharya (6) Surendrakumar Sen (7) Bhadresh Chandrakant Patel (8) Shyam Mohan Pandey (9) Gomti Shyammohan Pandey with 2 children (10) Ashmanbhai Jotabhai Suthar (11) Shri. Kishan Sharma (12) Vinod Ramkrupal Sharma (13) Jagmal Prajapati (14) Navin (15) Kartarchandra with children (16) Sunita Kartarchandra (17) Luckykumar (18) Raghuvir Carpenter with wife and children (19) Kanubhai Rathva (20) Sukhram Rathva (21) Darshanlal (22) Rani Malhotra (23) Arunkumar (24) Rakesh Rathod (25) Vinu Rathod (26) Mahendrapal with wife and children (27) Tirsinh Rathod (28) Jingaliben Rathod (29) Kirten Rathod (30) Bhavna Kirtan Rathod (31) Arjun Rathod (32) Shital Rathod (33) Jagdip Parmar with wife and children (34) Mahendra Malhotra (35) Jaypalsinh (36) Kusum Lataben Prajapati (37) Santap Rathod (38) Dilip K. Vyas (39) Ravikumar (40) Bhikhabhai (41) Prakashbhai (42) Vindobhai (43) Karshbhai. After mentioning these names, it is stated that: We do not hold any responsibility of these persons which we hereby declare. Date : 18/5/2013: Signature: Illegible. Chairman, Sant Shri. Baljit Singhji. This application is indicative of the fact that the contents of the C.D. Even if they are as stated by learned Additional Advocate General are of no significance. 32. Beside this, in this affidavit, two other things are important. One is, 'the course of action taken by the police, whenever any application for police protection is received'. The same is set out in below mentioned paragraphs which reads as under: 4. 32. Beside this, in this affidavit, two other things are important. One is, 'the course of action taken by the police, whenever any application for police protection is received'. The same is set out in below mentioned paragraphs which reads as under: 4. “At the outset, I state and submit that whenever an application is filed by anyone seeking police protection, the said application is examined on merits and if the result of the said examination at various level reach a conclusion that police protection is required to be given to maintain law and order situation, such protection is accorded based upon the need and the fact situation. 5. I respectfully state and submit that earlier the petitioner had prayed for similar police protection vide application dated 6.2.2013 which was filed on the letter-head of the respondent No.4 Trust and the said police protection was granted after requisite scrutiny. A copy of the said application is annexed hereto and is marked as Annexure-R/1. 6. I state and submit that the petitioner ought to have pointed out this crucial fact in the memo of the petition itself. Non-mentioning of this crucial fact and creating an unwarranted prejudice against the statutory authority is suppression of relevant and material fact. 7. I state and submit that the office of the District Superintendent of Police, Vadodara received an application dated NIL which was received on 15th May, 2013, a copy of which is annexed hereto and is marked as Annexure-R/2. 8. I state and submit that as per the procedure prescribed for the purpose of taking a decision to grant the police protection, the said application was forwarded to the Circle Police Officer, Karjan Circle and PSI Karjan Police Station for ascertaining as to whether there is a requirement for granting police protection. 9. I state and submit that PSI Karjan Police Station made his report dated 16th May, 2013 and forwarded the same to the Circle Police Inspector, Karjan Circle. After having received the said report, the Circle Police Inspector, Karjan Police Station examined the subject matter and prepared a detailed report opining the need for grant of police protection. The said reports were placed before the deponent who was at the relevant point of time Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO/Dy.SP), Vadodara (Rural). After having received the said report, the Circle Police Inspector, Karjan Police Station examined the subject matter and prepared a detailed report opining the need for grant of police protection. The said reports were placed before the deponent who was at the relevant point of time Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO/Dy.SP), Vadodara (Rural). After examining both the reports, the deponent opined to grant police protection as requested by the respondent No.4 vide her report dated 17th May, 2013. 10. I state and submit that after having received the said reports from the aforesaid three authorities, the Superintendent of Police, Vadodara (Rural) passed an order of granting police protection to the respondent No.4 vide his order dated 17th May, 2013, a copy of which is annexed hereto and is marked as Annexure-R/3. I state and submit that is relevant to note that the said order itself stipulates certain conditions as under: (a) The police force deployed for maintaining law and order would keep one Executive Magistrate present. (b) Videography shall have to be undertaken by the police department. (c) and most importantly it is categorically and unequivocally mentioned in the order of grant of police protection that the police protection is granted only for the purpose of granting (sic maintaining) law and order situation and the police force so deployed shall have no role in the question of possession. 33. The aforesaid averments are sufficient for this Court to appreciate that there is substance in the averments made by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. It is stated by the learned senior advocate for the petitioner that, but for the presence of police force, the respondent No.4 could not have entered the premises in question. The respondent No.4 was able to get his application favorably considered at all levels. The PSI Karjan Police Station made his report and forwarded the same to the Circle Police Inspector, Karjan Circle. After having received the said report, the Circle Police Inspector, Karjan Circle examined the subject matter and prepared a detailed report opining the need for grant of police protection. The said reports were placed before the deponent Ms. Usha Rada who was Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO/Dy.SP), Vadodara (Rural) at the relevant point of time. After having received the said report, the Circle Police Inspector, Karjan Circle examined the subject matter and prepared a detailed report opining the need for grant of police protection. The said reports were placed before the deponent Ms. Usha Rada who was Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO/Dy.SP), Vadodara (Rural) at the relevant point of time. From the contents of Para-10 of the Affidavit-in-reply, it clearly transpires that the police protection was granted on certain conditions and perusal of these conditions suggest that the same were prescribed to meet the situation which was to arise on the ground that it has no legal right on the land. 34. The law is very well settled on the point that even if respondent No.4-Trust is right in its say, it must take recourse to law and only by the remedy known to law, it can dispossess the petitioner-Trust. But under no circumstances, in the manner in which it is done in this case can be allowed. Following conditions were prescribed to grant police protection: (a) The police force deployed for maintaining law and order would keep one Executive Magistrate present. (b) Videography shall have to be undertaken by the police department. (c) and most importantly it is categorically and unequivocally mentioned in the order of grant of police protection that the police protection is granted only for the purpose of granting (sic maintaining) law and order situation and the police force so deployed shall have no role in the question of possession. 35. Despite the application referred to herein above, which is annexed with this affidavit-in-reply, the deponent-officer has not stated anything about any untoward incident having taken place. It is stated by the learned Additional Advocate General, that C.D. contains a 'warm welcome to Param Sant Shri. Baljit Singh at the premises'. If that is true, where is the question of petitioner approaching this Court with the petition and then pursuing the matter before the Division Bench. Even if it is believed that petitioner has not come out with true facts, the case pleaded by the other side, i.e. Param Sant Shri. Baljit Singh is also the same as set out in Annexure-R VII. It is stated therein that the persons of the petitioner-Trust misbehaved with Param Sant Shri. Baljit Singji and they not only shouted but also gave threat and scuffle, had taken place etc. It is stated therein that the persons of the petitioner-Trust misbehaved with Param Sant Shri. Baljit Singji and they not only shouted but also gave threat and scuffle, had taken place etc. In this view of the matter, this Court has no doubt that only conclusion which can be reached is that the petitioner-Trust was dispossessed on 18th May, 2013 and that dispossession could take place only on account of presence of police personnel. Now, the question which falls for consideration is what relief/s can be granted to the petitioner. In this regard, learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 cited various judgments in support of his submission that 'No relief be granted'. They are as under: (1) In the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev reported in AIR 1964 SC 685 , Paragraph No.13. (2) In the case of Sohan Lal v. Union of India reported in 1957 SCR 738 : AIR 1957 SC 529 , Paragraph Nos. 5 and 7. (3) In the case of C.M. Beena and Another v. P.N. Ramchandra Rao reported in (2004) 3 SCC 595 , Paragraph No.8,9 & 11. (4) In the case of M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana and Others reported in (1984) 4 SCC 371 , Paragraph No.5. 36. On careful consideration of all these judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the same are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the present case, the petitioner-Trust is dispossessed by taking law in one's own hand. This is not in conformity with 'Rule of law'. 37. Learned senior advocate for respondent No.4 also contended that as the matter is between the 'Trusts' it was incumbent upon the petitioner-Trust to initiate the proceedings only at the instance of all the Trustees and similarly any action against respondent No.4-Trust could have been taken after impleading all the Trustees of respondent No.4-Trust. 38. Learned senior advocate for the appellant replied this contention by saying that this contention was never taken earlier and therefore, this is not required to be accepted. 39. 38. Learned senior advocate for the appellant replied this contention by saying that this contention was never taken earlier and therefore, this is not required to be accepted. 39. Taking into consideration the nature of the controversy, more particularly, taking of possession of premises at the behest of one of the Trustees who was present at the scene on 18.5.2013 as the application is also given under his signature and the petition is necessarily filed against illegal dispossession of the petitioner Trust with the assistance of the police personnel, non-joinder of the Trustees is not found fatal to the present proceedings. 40. In reply to the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the respondent No.4, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner-Trust relied upon the following judgments and emphasised the paragraphs mentioned. To bring home the submission that the person who is deprived of the possession by remedy not known to law must get his possession restored. (1) In the case of P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharamanda Theertha Padar reported in 2006 (4) SCC 501 , Paragraph Nos. 16 & 17. (2) In the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead), By His Lrs. v. Shobha Venkat Rao reported in 1989 (4) SCC 131 , Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9. (3) In the case of Bhumeshwar Prasad v. United Commercial Bank reported in 2000 (7) SCC 232 , Paragraph No.7. (4) In the case of Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs. v. Varadappa Naidu (D) by L.Rs. and another reported in AIR 2004 SC 4609 , Paragraph Nos.11 and 12. (5) In the case of Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews II v. State of Kerala, Paragraph Nos. 10 and 13. (6) In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh with State of Punjab v. Ashok Kumar reported in 1991 (4) SCC 1 , Paragraph Nos. 7 and 8. (7) In the case of Rasiklal S.Gandhi v. State of Gujarat reported in 79(1) GLR 588, Paragraph Nos. 19 and 20. 41. Learned Additional Advocate General also relied upon certain judgments which are as under: (1) In the case of M.C. Chockalingam v. V. Manickavasagam reported in (1974) 1 SCC 48 , Paragraph Nos.12, 13, 15 & 16. (2) In the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead) by LRS v. Shobha Vekant Rao reported in (1989) 4 SCC 131 , Paragraph No.9. (3) In the case of Raptakos Brett & Co. (2) In the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead) by LRS v. Shobha Vekant Rao reported in (1989) 4 SCC 131 , Paragraph No.9. (3) In the case of Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property reported in (1998) 7 SCC 184 , Paragraph No.10. (4) In the case of Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani reported in (2003) 7 SCC 350 , Paragraph No.36. (5) In the case of Rama Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769 , Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9. (6) In the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (Dead) Through LRs reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370 , Paragraph Nos. 79 and 80. 42. These judgments do support the proposition of law which is set out herein above. To illustrate Para-9 of the judgment of the Krishna Ram Mahale (Dead) By LRs v. Shobha Venkat Rao, the Hon'ble the Apex Court said thus: 9. “The proposition was also accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Rattan v. State of U.P. The Division Bench comprising of three learned Judges held that a true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser while he is in the act or process of trespassing but this right is not available to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances, the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies under the law...” (Emphasis supplied). 43. In the case on hand, this Court is not left with any doubt in light of the contents of the lease deed and in light of the contents of the application filed by respondent No.4-Trust and other documents produced along with affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 by Ms. Usha Rada that the petitioner-Trust was in possession on or before 18th May, 2013 but thereafter, petitioner was dispossessed on 18.5.2013 in the presence of police personnel. The Court again deems it proper to reiterate that the Court does not pronounce on the aspect of legality and validity of the possession. Usha Rada that the petitioner-Trust was in possession on or before 18th May, 2013 but thereafter, petitioner was dispossessed on 18.5.2013 in the presence of police personnel. The Court again deems it proper to reiterate that the Court does not pronounce on the aspect of legality and validity of the possession. As stated herein above, even if 'the trespasser' is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with the possession. The reason behind this well settled proposition of law is that the Society has to be governed by 'rule of law'. If the true owner is allowed to take law in his hand and dispossesses the trespasser then it will not be a 'rule of law' but it will be 'Jungle Raj'. This Court will not allow the 'Jungle Raj' to enter or prevail and therefore, the following directions are issued: (A) Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to remove the persons (including respondent No.4) who have illegally entered in to school premises and other properties covered in lease deed dated 3.2.1997 with the help of police. This exercise should be completed within 10 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. (B) Respondent No.4, its servants, agents, etc. are hereby restrained from entering premises in question and creating nuisance at the said premises where Manav Kendra Gyan Mandir School is running and managed by the petitioner. Respondent No.4, its servants, agents are also restrained from obstructing the appellant in any manner whatsoever for running and managing the said school in a peaceful manner. The appeal is allowed. Judgment and order of learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. 44. At this juncture, learned senior advocate Mr. Bharat Naik appearing for one of the newly added party and learned senior advocate appearing for respondent No.4 requests that this order be stayed for 4 weeks so as to enable their clients to approach the higher forum. 45. The very fact that the Court has granted 10 days time to respondents to carry out these directions and taking into consideration the fact that the academic session of the school has already commenced, the request for 4 weeks is not found acceptable. 45. The very fact that the Court has granted 10 days time to respondents to carry out these directions and taking into consideration the fact that the academic session of the school has already commenced, the request for 4 weeks is not found acceptable. However, the order shall remain stayed for a period of 3 (three) weeks. Petition allowed.