On July 21, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the Samajwadi Party’s (SP) plea against its eviction from its district office in Pilibhit, directing the party to pursue its pending civil suit for ad-interim relief in the Civil Court.
The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made strong oral remarks during the hearing, indicating disapproval of the way the party had acquired the property. While no observations were recorded in the order on the merits of the case, the court’s comments pointed towards possible abuse of political power during the allotment.
“If you have abused and misused your political power like this, because you are the political party in power... in ₹115, do you think a municipal building will be available for a political party to open its office?” – Justice Surya Kant
At the start of the hearing, Justice Surya Kant asked Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing SP, about the mode of allotment of the Pilibhit office. Dave responded that the office was allotted by the Nagar Palika Parishad and that rent had been paid.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Entire Appeal Fails If Legal Heirs of Deceased in Joint Decree Are Not Added in Time
However, Justice Kant expressed disbelief at the nominal rent of ₹115 and questioned how such public property could be given away so cheaply. He added:
“Have you ever heard a building of the municipality within municipal area in ₹115? And you want us to believe it? People of this country should have some faith in the system.”
When Dave argued that possession had already been taken and the municipal authority could not forcibly lock the premises, the bench replied:
“Right now, you're an unauthorized occupant. Lease has been cancelled. You have not challenged that order.”
Read also:- Supreme Court Questions BCI on Relaxing AIBE Fee for Poor Law Graduates
Dave attempted to clarify that the lease cancellation order was under challenge, but Justice Kant pointed out:
“When you misuse political power, you don't remember what law has to be followed. When question of taking action comes, then you remember everything.”
The Court observed that fraudulent occupation using political or muscle power cannot be justified and stressed that such allotments are not valid:
“These are not allotments. These are all fraudulent occupations using political, money and muscle power.”
The bench advised SP to approach the Civil Court, where their suit is already pending, for any relief. When Dave raised concerns about a lawyers’ strike affecting court access, Justice Kant noted that the Supreme Court has given clear directions against such strikes.
Read also:- SC Criticises High Courts for Granting Undue Interim Relief in SARFAESI Cases
Notably, this was not the first legal hurdle for SP in this matter. On July 2, the Allahabad High Court refused to hear the party’s writ petition, pointing out that a civil suit was already in progress. Earlier in June, the Supreme Court had also dismissed another special leave petition filed by SP against the High Court’s order that barred the Pilibhit District President from filing further writ petitions related to the eviction.
Case Title: THE SAMAJWADI PARTY Versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 18269/2025