Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1047 (JHR)

Baikunth Rai v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-28

R.R.PRASAD

body2009
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated in between the petitioners and respondent nos. 7 to 9 with respect to a land, appertaining to Plot No. 183/1023 under Khata No. 7 of Village – Muramkala, Police Station and District Ramgarh, whereby, both the parties were restrained from going over the land, in dispute, but subsequently on 30.7.2007, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh passed a final order, whereby restrainment order passed against the first party-respondent nos. 7 to 9, was vacated whereas, it was made absolute so far as the petitioners are concerned. Against that order, the petitioners preferred a criminal revision application before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh vide Cr. Revision No. 147 of 2007, which was heard on 21.9.2007, whereupon notices were ordered to be issued against the opposite parties and the case was ordered to be put up after appearance of the opposite parties and at the same time, the order was also passed to the effect that no coercive order will be passed or action will be taken against the parties. According to the petitioners, said order was communicated to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh, on the same day making a prayer not to proceed with the matter, but ignoring the order dated 21.9.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh forwarded an application, filed by respondent nos. 7 to 9, to the Circle Officer, Ramgarh for taking necessary action. Having received such application, the Circle Officer, Ramgarh made a request to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh, to depute police force, so that the lock, put on the premises, be lifted. Thereafter, lock was opened and respondent nos. 7 to 9 were given possession of the premises, in dispute. 7 to 9, to the Circle Officer, Ramgarh for taking necessary action. Having received such application, the Circle Officer, Ramgarh made a request to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh, to depute police force, so that the lock, put on the premises, be lifted. Thereafter, lock was opened and respondent nos. 7 to 9 were given possession of the premises, in dispute. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh who asked the D.C.L.R., Ramgarh to make an enquiry and the D.C.L.R., Ramgarh after holding enquiry, reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner vide its report dated 15.10.2007, to the effect that the lock, which had been put under the order of S.D.M., Ramgarh over the premises, has been opened on 23.9.2007, but no action was taken by the Deputy Commission, Ramgarh and, therefore, there was no option left with the petitioners but to approach this Court with a prayer to restore the possession of the petitioners, as the respondent without there being any authority and also in utter disregard of the order passed by the Sessions Judge has thrown the petitioners out of possession. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 7 to 9 submits that, in fact, the property, over which proceeding was initiated, belongs to respondent no. 7, as he had purchased the same in his name and also in the name of his brothers -Amlok Singh and Rajendra Singh, who are said to have sold the property to the petitioners, though they had no authority to sell the property and that respondent no. 7 was never out of the possession, rather he had always been in possession from the date, when the property had been purchased by him and that the matter is pending for adjudication before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief sought for. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated in between the parties which was decided against the petitioners and then the petitioners approached before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh vide Cr. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated in between the parties which was decided against the petitioners and then the petitioners approached before the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh vide Cr. Revision No. 147 of 2007 whereby notice was issued and the case was ordered to be put up for admission after appearance of the opposite parties and at the same time, order was also passed to the effect that no coercive order will be passed or action will be taken against the parties, which order, according to the petitioners, was communicated to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh but inspite of that, an application filed by the respondent no. 7 was communicated to the Circle Officer for taking necessary action and then the Circle Officer, according to the report submitted by the D.C.L.R., opened the lock and put respondent no. 7 in possession of the premises, and, thus, such action on the part of the State-respondents was quite illegal, as there had been specific order of the Sessions Judge, not to take any coercive action against the petitioners. Under the situation, it would be appropriate to get the lock put in over the premises, until the matter is finally decided by the Sessions Judge. Accordingly, respondent no. 3 (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh) is directed to put the lock in the premises immediately. In view of the urgency of the matter, revision application pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh is directed to be disposed of at the earliest. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.