Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1108 (JHR)

Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-11

R.R.PRASAD

body2009
JUDGMENT : All three applications were heard together as the same though arise on account of different cause of actions but all the disputes in between the parties relate to same piece of land and as such, all the three applications are being disposed of by the common order. 2. A case bearing W.P. (Cr.) No. 218 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of petitioner-Raj Kumar Singh for a direction to the respondent for putting a lock on the gate fixed over the road leading to disputed Plot Nos. 371 and 377, appertaining to Khata Nos. 133 and 136, situated at Village – Heerapur, District Dhanbad, as the respondent no. 5-Police Inspector-cum-Officer In-charge, Dhanbad Police Station without any authority has lifted the lock of the gate and thereby prayer has been made to restore the possession of the petitioner over the land, in question. 3. The facts, giving rise all the aforesaid cases, are that the petitioner-Raj Kumar Singh claimed to have acquired right, title and interest over the land bearing Plot Nos. 371 and 377, appertaining to Khata Nos. 133 and 136, situated at Village-Heerapur, District-Dhanbad, as according to the petitioner, one Gouranga Kumar Bose executed an agreement for sale in favour of the petitioner and thereby on receiving part of the consideration money put the petitioner into physical possession over the land, in question, with the right to construct boundary wall and gate. Thereupon, when the petitioner on 23.3.2007 came over the land, in question, Rajendra Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh (intervener) and others did not allow him to do any work, rather forced him to leave those plots and, therefore, a complaint was made before the respondent no. 5-Police Inspector-cum-Officer In-charge, Dhanbad Police Station. On receiving such complaint, respondent no. Thereupon, when the petitioner on 23.3.2007 came over the land, in question, Rajendra Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh (intervener) and others did not allow him to do any work, rather forced him to leave those plots and, therefore, a complaint was made before the respondent no. 5-Police Inspector-cum-Officer In-charge, Dhanbad Police Station. On receiving such complaint, respondent no. 5 issued notice to both of them to produce documents by 24.3.2007, but Rajendra Singh instead of producing any paper showing his claim over the land, in dispute, filed a writ application bearing W.P. (C) No. 1857 of 2007 challenging the authority of the Officer In-charge of Dhanbad Police Station of issuing a notice for deciding the right, title and interest and also the possession of the parties over the land, in question, upon which this Court vide order dated 12.4.2007, issued notice to Gouranga Kumar Bose fixing case on 17.5.2007 and passed an interim order to the effect that till then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner without prior leave of this Court. Thereafter, one Urmila Devi filed an application before the S.D.M., Dhanbad on 16.4.2007 for initiating a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., as there was a grave apprehension of breech of peace between the parties. Upon it, case was instituted as M.P. Case No. 400 of 2007 and on the same day, S.D.M., Dhanbad initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., whereby the parties were called upon to submit their show-causes and in the meantime, both the parties were restrained from going over the land, in dispute. It appears from the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the intervener-Vinod Kumar Singh and also from the documents particularly a report relating to the inquiry made by the Dy. S.P. at the direction of the D.I.G., Bokaro on the application of one Sashi Bhushan Singh, resident of the same locality, annexed with I.A. No. 1089 of 2008, that in spite of such restrainment order, the petitioner with the help of the police official of Dhanbad Police Station forcibly erected a boundary wall and fixed a gate on 17/18.4.2009 at the passage which was a public road leading to the disputed plots as well as other houses including the house in which a school was running. 4. 4. Meanwhile, S.D.M., Dhanbad dropped the proceeding vide its order dated 5.6.2009 but while passing such order, it was observed that the second party (petitioner) has been able to prove successfully his title and possession over the land, in question. However, it appears from the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, that when much hue and cry was raised before the District Administration and also before the higher police officials, the D.I.G., Bokaro asked the police officer to take necessary action and thereupon respondent no. 5-Officer In-charge of Dhanbad Police Station got the lock of the gate opened on 12.6.2007 and reported the matter to the S.D.M., Dhanbad. 5. Being aggrieved with the action of the respondent no. 5-Officer In-charge of Dhanbad Police Station lifting the lock of the gate, the writ application bearing W.P. (Cr.) No. 218 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of Raj Kumar Singh. At the same time, contempt case bearing Contempt Case (C) No. 509 of 2008 was also filed, whereas Rajendra Singh has filed a civil writ application bearing W.P. (C) No. 1857 of 2007 against the order under which he was asked by the Officer Incharge of Dhanbad Police Station-respondent no. 5 to produce documents relating to the title and possession over the land, in dispute. 6. It be stated that there had been a dispute in between petitioner-Raj Kumar Singh and Rajendra Singh but Rajendra Singh has not been made party in this writ application. 5 to produce documents relating to the title and possession over the land, in dispute. 6. It be stated that there had been a dispute in between petitioner-Raj Kumar Singh and Rajendra Singh but Rajendra Singh has not been made party in this writ application. However, Ranjendra Singh and Vinod Kumar Singh intervened in the matter by filing the intervener petition and even a counter affidavit has been filed by the intervener-respondent-Vinod Kumar Singh, wherein it has been stated that the plot bearing No. 371 of Khata No. 133, which, according to the petitioner, has wrongly been recorded as Khata No. 13 instead of Khata No. 131, had been purchased by Late C.D. Singh, father of intervener-Vinod Kumar Singh, through registered sale-deed, whereas Plot No. 377 of Khata No. 136 has been settled to Late C.D. Singh by the then Jharia Raj by way of Hukumnama and since the year 1927 they have been coming in possession over the land, in dispute, but the petitioner, by virtue of the forged documents and with the help of the police official, tried to dispossess them from the land, in question, by fixing the gate over the road not only leading to disputed plots, rather to the other houses belonging to him and in one of the houses, a school is running. It has also been stated that even a civil suit bearing Title Suit No. 199 of 2007 filed for declaration of right, title and interest over the land, in dispute, is pending between the parties. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records including the report of the inquiry submitted by the Dy. S.P. to the D.I.G., Bokaro on a complaint made by one of the residents of the same locality, namely, Sashi Bhushan Singh, it does appear that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated in between the parties on 16.4.2007, whereby the parties were asked to submit their show-causes and by the same order, the parties were restrained from going over the disputed plots. In spite of that, gate was fixed over a passage not only leading to the disputed plots but to the other houses, which are being used by the local residents since long and that the passage over which gate was fixed and then the lock was put on was never the subject matter of the proceeding and thus, when the passage, over which the gate was fixed, has never been claimed to be part of the disputed land. Any action of the petitioner of fixing gate and putting lock over the passage, which is being used since long by the local residents, is certainly an act denoting high handedness on the part of the petitioner. 8. Under these situations, when the petitioner had no authority to fix gate on the passage and to put lock on it, lifting of the lock from the gate cannot, in the circumstances, be said to be illegal on the part of the Authority and at the same time, the petitioner cannot be said to have been thrown out of the possession and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever sought for in the writ application bearing W.P. (Cr.) No. 218 of 2007. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 9. So far civil writ application bearing W.P. (C) No. 1857 of 2007 is concerned, nothing is there under the facts, as stated above, to be decided. Accordingly, it is dismissed as infructuous. 10. So far contempt petition bearing Contempt Case (C) No. 509 of 2008 is concerned, the facts and circumstances, as stated above, do not warrant passing of any order. 11. Accordingly, all three applications stand disposed of.