Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 313 (JHR)

Anwari Begum v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2007-04-13

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2007
Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 19.9.1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 402 of 1996, whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence under section 3(v), (vi) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act). Learned counsel sel submits that the impugned order is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside on the ground that the learned court below has failed to exercise his judicial mind while passing the impugned order and no offence is made out against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel explains that admitted case of the complainant/opposite party no.1 is that the ancestors of the complainant had claimed the land under dispute as their own land and they have acknowledged the fact that they were dispossessed from the land in the year 1951 pursuant to a deed of relinquishment executed by their ancestors in favour of the ex-landlord and thereafter the ex-landlord sold away the land to Chandan Singh who having acquired the possession of the land constructed a katcha and pucca house on the land. Subsequently, the father of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit for restoration of the possession of the land under section 71 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. Prayer for restoration of the land was allowed by the competent court, which directed that the land be restored to the possession of the father of opposite parties no. 2 and 3, but the order was never complied with since the possession of the land was not restored to the petitioners. The occupant namely Chandan Singh had filed appeal and petition, one after the other, against the order of restoration but they were dismissed. Later on, he sold away the land including the structures standing thereon to the present petitioners. Learned counsel explains that the grievance of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 is that the petitioners despite their knowledge of the fact that the land belonged to opposite parties no. 2 and 3, had purchased the land from said Chandan Singh thereby committing offence punishable under Section 3(v), (vi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2 and 3 is that the petitioners despite their knowledge of the fact that the land belonged to opposite parties no. 2 and 3, had purchased the land from said Chandan Singh thereby committing offence punishable under Section 3(v), (vi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Further allegation is that the petitioners have prevented the opposite parties 2 and 3 to go into the land by raising obstruction on the passage between the two houses which earlier Chandan Singh had constructed on the land during his occupation. Learned counsel submits that the claim of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 that for the aforesaid act, the petitioners are liable for offence under Section.3(v), (vi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is misconceived. Learned counsel explains further that strangely enough, the persons who had actually constructed the house structure on the disputed land namely Chandan Singh has not been a necessary party to this case and the petitioners have been made accused merely because they had purchased the house over the land in question from Chandan Singh. 4. Opposite parties no. 2 and 3 have appeared and counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 3. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 submits that the instant application is totally devoid of merits and it also appears that the petitioners have not placed the facts of the case in proper perspective. Learned counsel while referring to certain paragraphs of the complaint petition, submits that pursuant to the order passed by the revenue department for restoration of possession, possession of a portion of the disputed agricultural land was delivered to the father of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 who, together had come into occupation of the agricultural land. The offence committed by the petitioners is that they raised obstruction on the passage which exists in between the kutcha and pucca house, thereby restraining opposite parties no. 2 and 3 from going over the agricultural land and from enjoyment, use and occupation and possession of the said land and, therefore, since the aforesaid facts constitute offence under section 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned court below. 6. 2 and 3 from going over the agricultural land and from enjoyment, use and occupation and possession of the said land and, therefore, since the aforesaid facts constitute offence under section 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned court below. 6. On reading the averments made in the complaint petition, it does appear that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that they had raised obstructions on the road leading to the agricultural land, thereby causing restraint to the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 from going over the said agricultural land, possession of which was acquired by them and by their ancestors. It therefore, appears that the grievance of opposite parties no. 2 and 3 is not confined only to the fact that despite their knowledge that the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 have been declared by competent court of law to be rightful owners of the disputed land, they had proceeded to purchase the land alongwith structures standing thereon from the erstwhile occupant namely Chandan Singh. The specific allegation against the petitioners is that they had raised obstructions in a manner so as to prevent opposite parties no. 2 and 3 from exercising their lawful right over the agricultural land of which they are in occupation and possession since the date on which the writ of delivery of possession• issued by the revenue court was executed in their favour. 7. Section 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides for punishment against any person who wrongfully dispossesses a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe from his land or premises or interferes with his enjoyment of his right over any land, premises or water. 8. The allegations as appearing in the complaint petition do suggest offence under Section 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, there appear no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of cognizance taken by the learned court below in complaint case no. 402 of 1996. 10. There is no merit in this application, which is dismissed accordingly.