In a strong indictment of judicial and administrative overreach, the Allahabad High Court has ordered district authorities in Siddharthnagar to immediately restore possession of a house to a woman who was evicted along with her three children last year. The court condemned the actions as taken in a "mala fide manner and in a colourable exercise of power."
Court Directs Swift Action and Compensation
The division bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Arun Kumar issued the directive on Monday, giving the administration just 48 hours to comply. The bench also ordered the evictor, a district court employee named Sandeep Gupta, to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation to the woman, identified as Soni, within one week. Failure to pay will trigger recovery proceedings by the district authority.
The High Court was hearing a petition filed by Soni in August last year, seeking to regain possession of her home. She alleged that Gupta, with the help of her alcoholic husband and his brother, procured a sale deed for a portion of the undivided property. He then used local court orders to forcibly evict her and her children, aged 8, 4, and 3, with police and revenue officials on July 18, 2025.
Inquiry Ordered Against Trial Court Judge and Employee
Taking serious note of the irregularities, the High Court bench has urged the Chief Justice to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against the trial court judge who passed the original eviction order. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Siddharthnagar had granted an ex-parte injunction on Gupta's petition in February 2025.
Furthermore, the court has directed that the matter concerning respondent No. 8, Sandeep Gupta—the court employee—be placed before the competent authority for appropriate legal action. The bench expressed grave concern over the "tearing hurry" in which the eviction was executed, raising doubts about the bona fides of both the court and administrative authorities.
Background of the Property Dispute
The petitioner explained that after her father-in-law's death, the house was recorded in the names of her husband Shyamji, his brothers Premji, Ramji, and Lalji, and their mother Shivdhari Devi. No formal partition of the property had ever occurred among the co-shares.
Soni, who ran a beauty parlour from a shop on the ground floor of the house, stated this was her family's sole source of income. She contended that Gupta was fully aware that the property was undivided when he obtained the sale deed through her husband and brother-in-law.
The High Court's firm stance underscores the principle that legal processes cannot be weaponized for dispossession, especially when it renders a mother and her minor children homeless. The order for a high-level inquiry signals a move towards accountability within the lower judiciary and court administration.
