JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed to seek a direction on respondent nos.1 and 2 to provide police protection to the petitioner and her family members. It is also to take an appropriate decision on the representation preferred by the petitioner. 2. The other prayer of the writ petition is to direct respondent no.1 to ensure that petitioner and her family members are not evicted and dispossessed from the property by using criminal force. 3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner purchased a piece of land from her husband Paras Nath Singh on 19.8.2014 through a registered sale deed. After purchase of land, petitioner occupied it. 4. Before construction of building on the land so purchased, petitioner approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for change of land use. The Sub Divisional Magistrate called for the spot inspection report and after its receipt, land use was changed for non agricultural purpose. 5. When petitioner started raising construction, it was obstructed by respondent nos.11 and 12 as they are influential persons. It is not only due to their involvement in politics but as they are running more than 54 educational institutions. Respondent no.11 and 12 used their influences to restrain the petitioner to raise construction despite the fact that another part of the land out of Gata No.291 was purchased by their Samiti on 2.7.2019 i.e. much subsequent to the purchase of the land by the petitioner. The respondent nos. 11 and 12 threatened the petitioner, thus, they come under the shadow of fear and terror. It is more so when administration fail to protect their life and liberty despite a detailed representation on 5.7.2019. 6. Giving facts of the case, it is stated that the petitioner purchased part of land of Gata No.291 much prior to the purchase of the land by a Samiti of respondent nos.11 and 12. The total area of Gata No.291 is 0.227 hectares out of which petitioner purchased only 0.02 hectares of land. The petitioner intended to use the land for residential purpose, thus sought change of land use from agricultural to non agricultural. It was permitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate by its order dated 20.5.2019 after spot inspection report. 7. The total area of Gata No.291 is 0.227 hectares out of which petitioner purchased only 0.02 hectares of land. The petitioner intended to use the land for residential purpose, thus sought change of land use from agricultural to non agricultural. It was permitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate by its order dated 20.5.2019 after spot inspection report. 7. The purchase of other part of land out of Gata No.291 by the opposite party nos.11 and 12 on 2.7.2019 was basically to take a passage from the main road to the land occupied by them in the back side of the land of Gata No.291. The land purchased by the petitioner is on the other side to the land purchased by the respondent no.11 and 12, out of Gata No. 291 yet they started creating hindrance in peaceful possession of the petitioner. Due to the influence of respondent nos.11 and 12, the official respondents exerted pressure on the petitioner not to raise construction rather forced to sell the land to the private respondents. The petitioner did not accept the proposal despite the threats. The police then got involved so that the petitioner give possession of the land to respondent nos.11 and 12. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to see that the land is sold to respondent nos.11 and 12, they started raising issue in regard to the portion of the land purchased by the petitioner. It was stated that the portion of the land occupied by the petitioner was not sold by the seller, rather it was other portion of Gata No.291. It is without describing as to on what basis, the aforesaid allegation has been made. 9. The petitioner even preferred a civil suit to seek injunction but to counter it, the respondent nos.11 and 12 had taken help of the official respondents due to their political influence. It is despite the fact that no dispute in regard to the portion of the land could have been raised by respondent nos.11 and 12 as the legal heirs of the erstwhile owner of the land have admitted sale of the portion occupied by the petitioner. The fact aforesaid came in the knowledge of the petitioner when a suit filed by the previous owner's legal heirs came to his notice where portion of the land sold to petitioner's husband was described. 10. The fact aforesaid came in the knowledge of the petitioner when a suit filed by the previous owner's legal heirs came to his notice where portion of the land sold to petitioner's husband was described. 10. The allegation has been made by the respondent nos.11 and 12 that the petitioner is in possession of the entire front portion of the land though she is in possession of a very small portion on the main road. If the map is looked into, major portion on the main road is either in the possession of the original tenure holder or respondent nos.11 and 12 after purchase of a part of land. 11. It is also stated that when petitioner moved an application for change of land use, the inspection was made by Lekhpal followed by a map showing portion of petitioner's land. It forwarded the report on 28.10.2017 to Naib Tehsildar and on 11.1.2019, Naib Tehsildar examined the same and sent it to the Tehsildar. On 29.1.2019, it was then forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate who passed final order on 20.5.2019. The spot inspection and the report was prepared much before the purchase of land by respondent nos.11 and 12, thus the claim made by them over the land possessed by the petitioner is not sustainable and otherwise it can be claimed by maintaining an appropriate suit and not by exerting pressure on the petitioner to sell the land with undue help of the official respondents. 12. The involvement of the official respondents gets satisfied from the fact that on 18.7.2019 when this Court passed a detailed order with a specific direction to Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate Gonda to ensure security of the petitioner so that her right in the property are protected. The Superintendent of Police, Gonda sent a report on 2.8.2019 to the District Magistrate for initiation of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It was after ignoring the order of this court dated 18.7.2019. 13. The proceedings under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. were however stayed by this Court vide its order dated 29.8.2019 in Writ Petition No.22981 (M/S) of 2019. The aforesaid action of the official respondents was for the reason that opposite party no.11 remain Member of Parliament on 5-6 occasions and belongs to Ruling Party. In view of the above, petitioner was left with no option but to file this writ petition. 14. The aforesaid action of the official respondents was for the reason that opposite party no.11 remain Member of Parliament on 5-6 occasions and belongs to Ruling Party. In view of the above, petitioner was left with no option but to file this writ petition. 14. The writ petition has been contested by respondent nos.11 and 12 while the Standing Counsel appearing for the State Government submits that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated to maintain law and order and not with ulterior motive. Since stay order has been passed by this court, no further action would be taken in the matter. It is further stated that they will give due protection to the petitioner and her family members. 15. The counsel for respondent nos.11 and 12 submitted that a portion of the land was purchased by the petitioner from her husband Shri Paras Nath Singh. The area so purchased is 192.60 sq. mt. (45 x 46 fts). After purchase of portion of land by the petitioner from her husband, she applied for change of land use. The proceeding for it was initiated in the year 2017 but final order was passed on 20.5.2019. A samiti of respondent no.11 also purchased part of land out of Gata No.291. 16. It is also stated that the name of Shri Paras Nath Singh, Shiv Prasad, Ram Ugrah Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Vijay Kumar Singh @ Lakhpat Singh and Smt. Prabhawati Singh widow of late Shri Pateshwari Singh were recorded in the Khatauni 1420-25. Since the land in dispute was not divided between the joint tenure holders, Paras Nath Singh could not have sold the land to the petitioner without division of land. A copy of the Khatauni has also been enclosed alongwith written argument. 17. The petitioner's husband purchased the land from Pateshwari Singh without demarcation of the area yet sold part of the land to the petitioner with demarcation of area in the map. The subsequent sale deed in favour of the petitioner alongwith map was only to create a right in the land on the main road i.e. on the southern side of the land to the extent of 45 ft leaving hardly any land on the front side. 18. The subsequent sale deed in favour of the petitioner alongwith map was only to create a right in the land on the main road i.e. on the southern side of the land to the extent of 45 ft leaving hardly any land on the front side. 18. The written argument makes a reference of a revenue suit under Section 116 under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 by Shri Prabhawati Singh and Vijay kumar son of late Pateshwari Singh before the S.D.O, Tarabganj, District Gonda. 19. The effort of the petitioner is to deprive the educational institutions and the other sharer of the land from valuable piece of land on the main road. It is even without getting her share defined by maintaining a suit for partition, though it has been filed by Shri Vijay Kumar Singh and Smt. Prabhawati Singh and is pending before the revenue court. 20. To substantiate the arguments, learned counsel for the respondent nos.11 and 12 has relied on the following judgements : (i). 1951 ALD 199 (Full Bench) : Chhedi Lal and another Vs. Chhotey Lal. (ii) 2009 (107) Revenue decisions 780 : Ramdas Vs. Sitabai and others. (iii). 2006 (1) 101 RD 794 : Haji Shabbir Ahmad and others Vs. District Judge, Kaushambi and others. The prayer is to dismiss the writ petition. In the written argument, additional facts along with documents have been submitted, which are not part of the counter affidavit to the writ petition. 21. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter, carefully. 22. The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to seek a direction on the respondent nos.1 and 2 for protection and appropriate action on the representation dated 5.7.2019. It is also with the prayer that the petitioner and her family members may not be dispossessed from the land in dispute by using criminal force. 23. The facts pertaining to the case needs to be given in serratum for clarity and even for appreciation of the arguments. 24. A land was existing in the name of Pateshwari Singh. The part of which was purchased by petitioner's husband Paras Nath through a sale deed dated 7.1.1995. It was for an area of 0.05 hectare. The name of purchaser was mutated in the revenue record. 24. A land was existing in the name of Pateshwari Singh. The part of which was purchased by petitioner's husband Paras Nath through a sale deed dated 7.1.1995. It was for an area of 0.05 hectare. The name of purchaser was mutated in the revenue record. It is given out by the counsel for respondent no.11 and 12 that on mutation of the land, an application to recall the mutation entry was filed by Vijay Kumar Singh @ Lakhpat Singh son of Pateshwari Singh after the death of Pateshwari Singh and is pending. The fact aforesaid shows that mutation entry in the name of petitioner's husband still exists. He sold part of the land to his wife on 19.8.2014. It was 2060 sq.ft. (46'X45'). In the sale deed, a map to indicate the area was enclosed though it was not existing in the sale deed in favour of petitioner's husband. 25. After purchase of the land by the petitioner, an application under Section 80 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for charge of land use was filed. The S.D.M. called for the spot inspection report. In the spot inspection, a map was prepared and forwarded to Naib Tehsildar. It was ultimately sent to the Tehsildar and finally to the S.D.M. of Tehsil Tarabganj, District Gonda. 26. An order was passed on 20.5.2019 to allow the land use for non agricultural purpose. The possession of petitioner on the land in dispute was found. The map prepared at the time of spot inspection shows the aforesaid. These are only facts and not the finding of this court. 27. Nandani Nagar Mahavidyalaya through its Deputy Manager, Karan Bhushan Singh purchased part of land out of Gata No.291, from Vijay Kumar Singh and Smt. Prabhawati Singh through the sale deed dated 1.7.2019. A dispute arose thereupon. The case of the petitioner is that after purchase of part of land out of Gata No.291, the respondent nos.11 and 12 exerted pressure to sell the land. It was even through the official respondents, thus writ petition to seek protection was filed. 28. The allegations have been made against respondent nos.11 and 12 for misuse of power having affiliation with a political party. Respondent no.11 is a Member of Parliament. Respondent no.12 is the son of respondent no.11. They said to be running 54 educational institutions in District Gonda. 28. The allegations have been made against respondent nos.11 and 12 for misuse of power having affiliation with a political party. Respondent no.11 is a Member of Parliament. Respondent no.12 is the son of respondent no.11. They said to be running 54 educational institutions in District Gonda. The facts aforesaid have not been denied in the counter affidavit. 29. The petitioner submitted that despite purchase of part of land out of new Gata No.291 by petitioner's husband in the year 1995 from original tenure holder Pateshwari Singh and thereupon by the petitioner from her husband in the year 2014 with settled possession, the respondent nos.11 and 12 exerted pressure to vacate the land with the help of official respondents nos.1 to 10. It is despite the fact that petitioner is not holding entire front of Gata No.291 on the main road rather a small part of it. The allegations made by respondent nos.11 and 12 that petitioner has occupied entire front, has been diluted by them in their written argument, which indicate that only 45 or 46 fts. on the front has been occupied by the petitioner leaving the rest. In any case, we are not deciding the inter se dispute about the land as it can be settled by appropriate court but have touched the facts to see whether petitioner is entitled to seek protection of the nature sought by the petitioner. 30. The area possessed by the petitioner's husband after the sale deed in his favour has been indicated in the suit preferred by one Vijay Kumar Singh and Smt. Prabhawati Singh. The suit aforesaid was filed in the year 2017 i.e. much prior to the purchase of land by the Samiti. 31. At this stage, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent nos.11 and 12 to challenge the sale in favour of of the petitioner's husband without division of land is to be dealt with. 32. An unnecessary confusion has been created by referring to a recent Khatauni where the name of the legal heirs of Pateshwari Singh and petitioner's husband Paras Nath Singh were entered. It is to show that the land in dispute of Gata No.291 exists in the name of many persons, thus part of it could not have been sold to the petitioner without its division where as even respondent no.11 and 12 have purchased the land without its division. 33. It is to show that the land in dispute of Gata No.291 exists in the name of many persons, thus part of it could not have been sold to the petitioner without its division where as even respondent no.11 and 12 have purchased the land without its division. 33. It is after ignoring the fact that one Pateshwari Singh was the original tenure holder and much before his death, he sold 0.05 hectare land to Paras Nath Singh i.e. petitioner's husband. After the purchase of land by Paras Nath Singh from Pateshwari Singh, his name was mutated in the revenue record for 0.05 hectares. The mutation of land in favour of petitioner's husband Paras Nath Singh has been challenged by Vijay Kumar Singh but in those proceedings, no order adverse to the petitioner or her husband has been passed. 34. Shri Vijay Kumar and Prabhawati Singh have filed a suit for partition of land under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. In two different proceedings, possession of the petitioner on the part of the land has been shown. The arguments against the sale deed in favour of the petitioner without division of land has been raised without its challenge by maintaining a suit by the respondent no.11 and 12. It is otherwise a fact that even Samiti of respondent nos. 11 & 12 has also purchased the land without its division. The challenge to sale deed by respondent no.11 and 12 in the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot otherwise be accepted. They can maintain a suit for it. In any case, the official respondents should not have involved themselves in the dispute. It is reflected from the proceedings in this writ petition itself. The coordinate Bench of this court passed following order on 18.7.2019 : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri H.K.Mishra has sought indulgence of the court to make amends in the nomenclature of respondents 11 and 12. 2. Considering the nature of the issue the file has been returned to Shri H.K.Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner for necessary amends in memo of parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri H.K.Mishra has sought indulgence of the court to make amends in the nomenclature of respondents 11 and 12. 2. Considering the nature of the issue the file has been returned to Shri H.K.Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner for necessary amends in memo of parties. 3. Smt. Jasoda Singh @ Yosoda Singh, aged about 72 years has preferred this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 (Chief Secretary, U.P. and Principal Secretary, Home U.P. Lucknow) to provide police protection to the petitioner and her family members and take appropriate action on the representation made by the petitioner dated 5.7.2019 appended with the petition as Annexure-1. 4. It has been pleaded that the petitioner purchased a piece of land from recorded share holder on 19.8.2014 comprised in Gata No.291 measuring 192.60 Square meters falling in Village Banghusra, Pargana Mahadeva, Tehsil Tarabganj, District Gonda. The sale deed and revenue record in that regard has been appended as Annexure-2 collectively with the petition. It has been pleaded that petitioner along with her family members started residing in a temporary shed house and construction has been undertaken thereon. The land has already been declared as non-agricultural land under Section 80 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006. It has been asserted that the title of the petitioner and the construction is legal, to the knowledge and notice of the district authorities. It has been alleged that respondents 11 and 12 are running more than 54 educational institutions. The said persons purchased remaining portion of land comprised in Gata No.291(supra) from other co-sharer vide sale deed dated 2.7.2019. It has been alleged that unauthorizedly even the land belonging to the petitioner is being shown as a part of land purchased by respondents 11 and 12. Since then the petitioner and her family members have been living under shadow of fear and terror. It has been alleged that the local administration also has failed to give protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner. Faced with such circumstance a detailed representation was given by the petitioner, appended with the petition as Annexure-1 dated 5.7.2019. It has been asserted that the petitioner had started construction. An attempt is being made by respondents 11 and 12 to get the constructed area demolished and take forcibly the land belonging to the petitioner. Faced with such circumstance a detailed representation was given by the petitioner, appended with the petition as Annexure-1 dated 5.7.2019. It has been asserted that the petitioner had started construction. An attempt is being made by respondents 11 and 12 to get the constructed area demolished and take forcibly the land belonging to the petitioner. It has been pleaded that the structure is at the roof level however the petitioner is not being allowed to complete the construction. On account of vagaries of weather in the present and coming months the structure would become useless before construction is complete. It has been argued by learned counsel that right vested in the petitioner is being violated on account of high handed conduct of respondent no.11 and 12, however, the district administration has failed to give due protection to the life and liberty to the petitioner. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the petition; the apparent fact that respondents 11 and 12 appear to have purchased portion of the same Gata number; the petitioner is the lady aged 72 years and the fact that despite representation no action has been taken, we hereby direct that notice be issued to respondents 11 and 12, also by registered AD post, returnable on 19.8.2019. 6. We hereby direct Superintendent of Police Gonda and District Magistrate Gonda to ensure that appropriate security, as required by facts and circumstances, is provided to the petitioner so that her rights on the property, in case established, are protected. Not only life and liberty of the petitioner is required to be protected but also use of her property is required to be protected. In this regard relevant order be passed/issued within three days of receipt of certified copy of this order. Shri Raj Baksh Singh shall convey the order to Superintendent of Police Gonda and District Magistrate Gonda for immediate compliance. 7. List on 19.8.2019. 8. Let counter affidavits be filed." 35. The order quoted above was passed by this court in the given circumstances and shows specific direction on Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Gonda to ensure appropriate security. It is not only protection of life and liberty to the petitioner but for use of property. 7. List on 19.8.2019. 8. Let counter affidavits be filed." 35. The order quoted above was passed by this court in the given circumstances and shows specific direction on Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Gonda to ensure appropriate security. It is not only protection of life and liberty to the petitioner but for use of property. The official respondents were expected to comply the directions aforesaid but they initiated proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. This is sufficient to show their involvement thus, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were stayed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22981 (M/S) of 2019. The fact given above shows intervention of the court against the action of official respondents for resorting to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. instead of giving protection to the petitioner and her family members pursuant to the order of this court dated 18.7.2019. It is alleged to be for the reason that respondent no.11 is sitting Member of Parliament and belongs to Ruling party. Even if the allegation aforesaid are ignored, the fact remains that the official respondents have not acted in consonance to the order passed by this court on 18.9.2019 and aforesaid is sufficient to substantiate the allegation made by the petitioner against them. 36. Taking overall facts into consideration, we find merit in the writ petition to direct the official respondents to give an adequate protection to the petitioner and their family members to save their life and liberty. 37. The order given hereinabove is not to affect any of the proceedings pending before the revenue or civil court rather those would be decided independent to it based on the evidence lead by the parties therein and for that any observations or finding herein would not bind the court. The observations herein have been made only to see whether the case is made out for grant of relief to the petitioner. 38. Before parting with the judgment, it is made clear that documents enclosed alongwith the written arguments by respondent no.11 and 12 have not been considered as they are not part of counter affidavit filed by them but are not refrained to file in the pending cases in different courts, if so permissible. 39. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid.