Allahabad HC Directs SSP's Personal Appearance Over Failure To Provide Police Force To Judge Executing Commission

A bench of Justice JJ Munir was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Bhanu Pratap and others concerning alleged encroachment and illegal constructions on pond land in Village Katya, Tappa Haveli, Tehsil Khajni, District Gorakhpur.

Briefly put, in its order passed on 22 May 2025, the Court had issued a commission to the Judge, Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur, to conduct an on-site investigation of a plot using both the Three Fixed Point Method and the Total Station Method of land survey.

The Commissioner was to be assisted by a Survey Amin, a technical expert from the Public Works Department, and a police force in adequate strength, to be provided by the SSP, so that the commission could be carried out smoothly.

However, when a Commission report was submitted, the High Court was 'shocked' to note that the SSP, Gorakhpur, had failed to provide any police support for the operation, despite explicit and timely communication through the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Quoting the Judge's report, the High Court noted:

"Despite the Hon'ble High Court's order the SSP, Gorakhpur did not provide Police force while copy of the order served upon SSP Gorakhpur through CJM, Gorakhpur…When I reached at the spot, people and villagers were present and some of them argue & confront but due to my tactful conversation they become cool & calm and thereafter survey commission were started and completed successfully".

The single judge observed with concern that the absence of police force had put the concerned Judge at risk, leaving him to "fend for himself and depend on his own resourcefulness" in the face of confrontation by the villagers.

The court further remarked that the SSP's failure to comply with the Court's directive amounted to prima facie "most irresponsible fashion" of behaviour.

It further noted that had the Judge been assaulted during the execution of his commission, the consequences could have been "far more serious".

Although the Standing Counsel attempted to explain the conduct of the SSP, the Court found the version to be "not coherent", describing it as "mixed up and confounded".

Accordingly, the Court directed the personal presence of the SSP. It ordered thus:

"…we think it appropriate to order the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur to appear in person before us on 16.07.2025 at 2.00 p.m. and explain the circumstances in which the learned Civil Judge had to go about the Commission without the necessary assistance of police force deputed by him in compliance with our orders dated 22.05.2025".

For context, the commission was issued by the HC given a dispute on facts regarding the existence of encroachments on said public pond land.

Earlier, the High Court had directed the removal of illegal encroachments on the pond land and pursuant to that, the District Magistrate had claimed that both the pillars of the earlier constructed water tank and the encroachment had been removed, however, the petitioners asserted that the respondent no. 6 had not removed his house constructed in the land, which is a pond.

In light of these conflicting claims, the Court had deemed it necessary to independently verify the factual situation by issuing a commission for local investigation and survey, instructing the Commissioner to identify the said plot, determine what area of the plot has been encroached and to discreetly find out if the sixth respondent is in encroachment of the same plot.