Allowed

Ajay Yashwant Nehru v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2021A482/1966/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding the applicant was an imposter. It clarified ownership of disputed land, rejected claims by others, and directed sealing of property pending valid transaction by rightful owners residing abroad.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; property sealed; applicant to be tried for impersonation; District Magistrate to protect title and prevent encroachment by others.

Ajay Yashwant Nehru Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1966 of 2021 Applicant :- Ajay Yashwant Nehru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Viresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aditya Prasad Mishra,Katyayini,Sipahi Lal Shukla,Vivek Yadav Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Viresh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant, Sri Manoj Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri U.P. Singh and Sri Nitin Kesarwani, learned counsel appearing for the State, Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Katyayini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5, Sri Sipahi Lal Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 and Sri Aditya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the persons who have filed impleadment application.

¶5

The present matter was heard on various dates and lastly vide order dated 24.03.2021, the revisionist before this Court was held to be an imposter was got taken in judicial custody. Although, the revision-in-question has been filed arising out of proceedings being initiated under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., and once this Court has held that the applicant is an imposter the application can be decided and dismissed on that ground alone. However, keeping in mind the notorious history of the

¶6

¶7

case involving a very important piece of land in the city of Allahabad, this Court deems it proper to decide the issues specially with regard to the ownership and possession of the property-in-question, it is clarified that this order pertains only to this area as mentioned in the sale-deed dated 15.01.2002 executed by Sri Vivek Nehru through his power of attorney holder in favour of Sri Vishva Prakash Srivastava and Smt. Savitri Srivastava and as bounded by the boundaries disclosed in the said sale-deed filed on record in terms of the orders passed by this Court.

¶8

Respondent no.7 is present in this Court today who is also the power of attorney holder of respondent no.8. On a specific query being raised from respondent no.7 by the Court he specifically states that he is owner of the property-in-question as is sold to him by virtue of the sale-deed dated 15.01.2002. He further makes statement that he has not executed any power of attorney creating any rights in favour of anyone nor he has sold any part of the property as owned by him by virtue of sale-deed dated 15.01.2002 to anyone. He further states that as he resides in United States of America, efforts are being made to somehow grab the property and lastly he seeks protection of this Court from any interference in his property rights or his personal rights.

¶9

Sri Sipahi Lal Shukla, learned counsel appears on behalf

¶10

¶11

of opposite party no.6, Sri Akash Kumar Shukla, claims that he was appointed the caretaker of the property-inquestion by respondent no.7 and in pursuance to the said authority claims to be in possession of the property till he was thrown out by the administration by virtue of orders passed by this Court. He also claims that he is entitled to payment of money payable to him by the respondent no.7.

¶12

Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Katyayini, learned counsel appear for respondent nos.4 and 5 and claim to be having power of attorney in their favour issued by the respondent no.7. The said power of attorney admittedly is not a registered one and does not create any right in favour of the respondent nos.4 and 5 with regard to the sale or otherwise of the property-in-question.

¶13

No other person has claimed any right over the property or right of possession over the property-in-question.

¶14

The claim of respondent no.6, Akash Kumar Shukla has not been substantiated by any documents on record except for the argument of Sri Sipahi Lal Shukla, Advocate that the respondent no.7 has himself admitted that the respondent no.6 was appointed as a caretaker of the property. There is nothing on record to substantiate that respondent no.6 had any contract in his favour based upon which claim of money is sought to be raised. In any view of the matter, the respondent no.6

¶15

¶16

has no claim either of the title or of possession over the property-in-question as admittedly he is not in possession as of today. Thus, the claim of respondent no.6 over the property-in-question stands specifically rejected by this Court.

¶17

Now coming to the claim of respondent nos.4 and 5 who claim to be the power of attorney claimed by respondent nos.4 and 5 through an unregistered document dated 05.07.2019. The same does not bear any date except a date mentioned under the signatures of witnesses, the said general power of attorney does not create any right in favour of the respondent nos.4 and 5 in any manner either over possession or title on the property. Thus, it is specifically held that the respondent nos.4 and 5 also do not have any right over the title or possession over the property-in-question.

¶18

Thus, what precipitates is that respondent nos.7 and 8 are the owner of the property by virtue of the sale-deed executed in their favour on 15.01.2002 and it is held that it is the respondent nos.7 and 8 alone are the owners of the property-in-question as disclosed in the foot of the sale-deed dated 15.01.2002.

¶19

Considering the age of the respondent no.7 and the fact that he is not residing in usual course of business in India, this Court deems it fit to direct the District Magistrate, Allahabad to take such steps as may be necessary to protect the title and possession of the

¶20

¶21

property as bounded and disclosed in the sale-deed dated 15.01.2002 till such time that a validly executed sale-deed is done by the respondent nos.7 and 8 in favour of whosoever they may choose.

¶22

Specific direction is issued that steps shall be taken to ensure that respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 are not given any possession over any part of property-in-question indicated in title deed executed in favour of the respondent nos.7 and 8.

¶23

The District Magistrate, Allahabad is at liberty to take strict action against any encroacher including respondent nos.4, 5 and 6, in the event of a complaint being made for any unauthorised encroachment over the property-in-question.

¶24

The above over orders have been passed keeping in mind the history of litigation and the apprehension of breach of peace at the instance of persons who have no title or claim over the property-in-question. It is further clarified that in the event, the District Magistrate, Allahabad or any other State Authority feels any impediment in implementation of this order they are at liberty to approach this Court for any clarification or otherwise.

¶25

Before parting with the case, person posing as Sri Ajay Yashwant Nehru, the imposter was taken into custody by this Court, it is directed that he shall be tried in accordance with law before the Magistrate concerned.

¶26

¶27

The property-in-question was sealed by orders of this Court. It is made clear that in the event, the petitioner or a properly authorised person approaches the District Magistrate, Allahabad, he will de-seal the property-inquestion and handover the possession to the respondent no.7 or his duly authorised person only. In case the respondent no.7 approaches the District Magistrate apprehending any threat to his life and liberty, the District Magistrate shall take requisite steps in that regards.

¶28

The petition stands disposed off with the said directions.

¶29

Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Atul

Court No. - 6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶34

(Criminal Misc. Impleadment Application No.2 of 2021)

¶35

In view of the order passed by this Court today confining the scope of order to the property covered in the saledeed dated 15.01.2002, no case for impleadment is made out. The same is rejected.

¶36

Order Date :- 28.7.2021

¶37

Atul

Ajay Yashwant Nehru v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Yashwant Nehru v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumitra Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kanti Devi Vs Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) and 2 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surya Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Babu Lal Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Ram Bahadur and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others