Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 508 (PAT)

Uma Devi v. State Of Bihar

2007-03-13

NAVIN SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Intervenor. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the peoperty in question, identified as holding no. 337 (A), 51 (new), khesra no. 356 and 576 in ward no. 20 (new), tauzi no. 92 C and 268 B situated in Mohalla- Bengali Tola, Samastipur, measuring 1 katha 3 1/2 dhurs (out of a total area of 2 kathas 3 1/2 dhurs) by a registered sale deed dated 3.12.1985 from the vendor Smt. Swarna Kaur, who in turn purchased the same from one of the co-owners who acquired title on partition. A part of the vended lands were occupied by a tenant for which an eviction suit was instituted by the vendor of the petitioner and which came to be decreed and executed in Execution Case No. 21 of 1977 when possession was handed over to the petitioner on 14.12.2001 by the Nazir presently at Annexure-2. The area and description of the lands which came to be handed over to the petitioner in pursuance of the execution of the decree are mentioned in detail in Annexure-2. The boundaries of the entire vended lands are also described in the title deed. The petitioner applied for mutation and then applied for permission to construct a commercial-cum-residential building, which has been sanctioned by the competent authority on 29.3.2003. Her grievance is that when she commenced the construction, certain antisocial elements started creating hindrance by preventing the labourers to work upon the site. About hundred people collected near the construction site and attempted to physically prevent the construction. Having petitioned the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, no action was taken by the concerned authorities compelling her to approach this Court. 3. An application has been filed for intervention on behalf of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), District Committee, Samastipur, through its Secretary, Ajay Kumar numbered as I.A. No. 3507 of 2005 to be added as Intervenor-Re-spondent. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of the Intervenor submitted that the Intervenor is also a purchaser of an area of 1 katha 3 1/2 dhurs of lands of the same plot from the total area of 2 kathas 7 112 dhurs from another co-owner under a deed dated 9.9.2002. The plot numbers 356 and 576 measured a total of 2 kathas and seven dhurs. The plot numbers 356 and 576 measured a total of 2 kathas and seven dhurs. Learned counsel for the Intervenors further sought to persuade this Court that in Execution case No. 21 of 1977 when delivery of possession was effected on 14.12.2001, the entire area which was the subject matter of the eviction suit was, in fact, not handed over to the petitioner and a part of the decreed area continued to remain in possession of one Amresh Kumar, son of the erstwhile ousted tenant. The petitioner, in fact, seeks to encroach upon the lands of the intsrvenors to compensate with respect to the area still in illegal occupation of Amresh Kumar. The petitioner by this subterfuge seeks to encroach upon the lands of the Intervenor. 5. This Court has considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and the intervenor. In a civilised society governed by the rule of law every citizen has a right to enjoy his or her property unfettered by interference, except in accordance with law. Any interference with this right of enjoyment without the sanction of the law cannot be countenanced by a court of law. Should such enjoyment of properties sanctioned by law be interfered with, it shall be the solemn duty of the State to ensure that a citizen is permitted to live freely and fearlessly and enjoy the property. Every mans home is his castle. In the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner is a purchaser of the lands, which are described in the sale deed. Part of the vended lands which subsequently came to the possession of the petitioner in pursuance of an eviction decree of a court of law are also described in the execution decree. The petitioner cannot be obstructed and prevented from making construction upon her lands described in the sale deed read in conjunction with the execution decree under a plan sanctioned by the competent authority much less by a third person. 6. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that the State shall ensure that uncontroversial lands described in the sale deed read in conjuction with the execution decree shall be available to her unhindered for construction in accordance with law. The State shall so ensure. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that the State shall ensure that uncontroversial lands described in the sale deed read in conjuction with the execution decree shall be available to her unhindered for construction in accordance with law. The State shall so ensure. 7. This Court, in exercise of its powers under writ jurisdiction, finds it difficult to go beyond the sale deed of the petitioner read in conjunction with the decree of execution and consider the plea of the intervenors. There is no material record before this Court in support of what was suggested on behalf of the Intervener that the execution of the decree at Annexure-2 was not done fully and that a part of the decreed lands continued in possession of the evicted tenant. There would be a presumption under Sec.114(e) of the Evidence Act that all judicial acts have been performed properly in normal course. There is no evidence on record to rebutt this presumption. This^ Court, thus, finds it difficult to entertain the plea of intervenor. This Court is satisfied that the plea raised is frivolous and intended to obstruct enjoyment by the petitioner of the vended lands. The intervention application is, therefore, rejected. This shall, however, be without prejudice to the rights of the intervenor, if any, to agitate their grievance before any appropriate forum. 8. This writ application is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur are directed to ensure that there is no illegal or unauthorised interference by third persons with the construction sought to be made by the petitioner as per the sanctioned plan on the lands, which are the subject matter of the sale deed dated 3.12.1985 in her favour read in conjunction with the decree of execution as contained at Annexure-2.