Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 383 (UTT)

VEENA DESHWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-07-16

K.M.JOSEPH, SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ, order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 to grant protection to the life and property of the petitioner which they apprehended to be breached by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 and other persons." 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a 78 years old lady. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 are the sons of the petitioner and respondent nos. 6 & 7 are her grandsons. It is alleged that the petitioner is owner of a house situated in 22, Bilkeshwar Colony, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar. The husband of the petitioner was the owner of a Hotel by the name Sant Hotel. It is stated that the private respondents made fraud with the husband of the petitioner and sold out entire hotel and misappropriated entire money. It is further stated that they want to sell out the house situated at 22, Bilkeshwar Colony, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar and misappropriate the entire money. Petitioner made paper publication to oust them and disowing the rights of respondents in any manner from her entire movable and immovable properties. It is further stated that the private respondents forcefully entered into the house of the petitioner on 14.06.2018 and started inter alia blinding and assault with the petitioner (it must be making assault). It is also alleged that the private respondents had also given threat of life to the petitioner. Reference is made to the petitioner calling her daughter and since then, the petitioner is living with her daughter in Amritsar. She returned back on 23.06.2018 to her house in Haridwar. After getting knowledge about the presence of the petitioner, the private respondents forcefully entered in her house and pressurized the petitioner to transfer the title of the house in their favour. When the petitioner denied to do so, they started inter alia assaulting the petitioner. Petitioner made representations on same day i.e. 23.06.2018 (Annexure 2 and Annexure 4). She is still living in her house and it is her apprehension that the private respondents may in future assault the petitioner and 3 cause grievous injuries hence there is always threat to life. 2. Today when the matter was taken up, we heard Mr. Petitioner made representations on same day i.e. 23.06.2018 (Annexure 2 and Annexure 4). She is still living in her house and it is her apprehension that the private respondents may in future assault the petitioner and 3 cause grievous injuries hence there is always threat to life. 2. Today when the matter was taken up, we heard Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Government Advocate on behalf of the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 7. Though served, there is no appearance for the 4th respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 to 7 would deny the allegations made in the Writ Petition. He would further submit that there will be no threat to the petitioner by them. It is also submitted that the said respondents do not deny, rather candidly admit the fact that the property, which is referred to as situated at 22, Bilkeshwar Colony, Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar belongs to the petitioner and that respondent nos. 5 to 7 will not interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. He, no doubt, submits that the husband of the petitioner has filed an affidavit indicating that the property (Hotel), was sold by him as it was property belonging to him. 4. In the light of this submission, we dispose of the Writ Petition as follows: As far as respondent nos. 5 to 7 are concerned, we record the submissions of their counsel made on their behalf after their instructions, which have been made above. Besides, recording the said submission, we direct that if the petitioner ever complains before the 2nd respondent of any conduct, contrary to the submissions made before this Court, the 2nd respondent will look into the complaint and if it is found to be genuine, will afford effective police protection to the petitioner for her life and her residence in the property comprising in 22 Bilkeshwar Colony, District Haridwar. Regarding the 4th respondent, who has not put in appearance despite being served, we direct that in case the petitioner makes a representation with specific allegations of any threat to her life by the 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent will look into it and if it is found to be genuine, will afford the protection to the petitioner as against the 4th respondent also. 5. However there would be no order as to cost.