Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1731 (PAT)

Mamta Shukala Wife Of Shri Girish v. State Of Bihar

2010-08-02

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. This criminal writ application has been filed by the petitioner Mamta Shukala claiming that she has been dispossessed by Bablu Shukala who is the brother of her husband from the ground floor of Shukala House on 10.12.2009 with the help of respondent no. 9. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1960, there was a partition by family arrangement, as a result of which each of the five sons of Prem Chandra Shukala were given a specific share. Late Shailesh Chandra Shukala had gifted the share allotted to him to the petitioner by a deed of gift dated 13.3.1992. The peti- tioner got her name mutated in the Patna Municipal Corporation in the year 1993 and has been paying rent continuously to the State of Bihar. Girish Chandra Shukala, the brother-in-law of the petitioner filed a Title (Partition) Suit No. 5 of 1999 with respect to the partition of the property which fell in the share of his father Sushil Chandra Shukala. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sections 94 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed, in which the Court passed an order of status quo. The submission is that there is a violation of the order of the status quo, as Girish Chandra Shukala has dis- possessed her from some of the rooms in the house with the connivance of the State Authorities. 3. This matter was earlier heard by a Bench of this Court who ordered that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna will look into the grievances of the peti- tioner in the light of the order of the D.I.G., Law & Order, Bihar, Patna, who has ordered for the restoration of posses- sion which is not being obeyed by the local Police Officiate and advised the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna to take remedial measures. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Po- lice, Patna has filed an affidavit stating therein that the D.I.G., Law & Order, Bihar had not issued any order for restoration of the possession, rather asked the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Town), Patna Ms. Sheela Irani to enquire into the mat- ter. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Po- lice, Patna has filed an affidavit stating therein that the D.I.G., Law & Order, Bihar had not issued any order for restoration of the possession, rather asked the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Town), Patna Ms. Sheela Irani to enquire into the mat- ter. After taking the statements of the parties, the Deputy Superintendent of Po- lice (Town), Patna had submitted a report saying that the dispute w%j of a civil nature and until the Civil Court decides the matter, it would be difficult for the Police Authorities to take any steps in the matter. It has further been denied that there was any person by the name of Manoj Kumar posted at Kadamkuan Po- lice Station who is said to have allegedly helped respondent no. 11 to dispossess the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, on 2.2.2010, this Court ordered the Senior Superintend- ent of Police, Patna to visit the Shukala House and submit the enquiry report. On 5.2.2010, the matter came up under the heading for orders and Mr. J.N. Singh, J., was not inclined to hear the matter and as such this matter was transferred before this Court. 6. Vehement arguments have been made on behalf of both the parties. This Court was of the opinion that if there is any violation of the order of the Civil Court, a civil contempt would lie in this matter. As far as the allegations against the State Authorities are concerned, it appears from the affidavit which is on record that they were not actively involved in the so-called act of dispossessing the petitioner. 7. In any event, this Court had enter- tained the criminal writ application and in view of the statements made on behalf of the parties, this Court appointed Advo- cates Mr. S. Qaisar Hasan and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra as Commissioner of the Court to enquire into the topographi- cal structure of the house, note down the number of rooms, bathrooms, verandas, bed-rooms, servant quarter, if any, ga- rage, if any and the names of the persons occupying the rooms. Protection was pro- vided through the A.A.G.-III to the Advo- cate Commissioners. ? 8. This Court records its appreciation of the two aforesaid Advocates, inasmuch as the time, effort and thoroughness in which the spot verification was done by the Advocate Commissioners. Protection was pro- vided through the A.A.G.-III to the Advo- cate Commissioners. ? 8. This Court records its appreciation of the two aforesaid Advocates, inasmuch as the time, effort and thoroughness in which the spot verification was done by the Advocate Commissioners. They have submitted a detailed report to this Court alongwith a map. In view of the efforts made by the Advocate Commissioners, it would be proper that they should be reim- bursed for their efforts and since the en- tire exercise was on the basis of the submissions of the parties, I direct that each of the parties, namely, the petitioner Mamta Shukala and respondent no. 11 Bablu Shukala pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- each to the Advocate Commissioners within a period of two weeks, on receipt of a copy of this order, which is only a token amount and in no way can it be treated as a remuneration for the time and efforts of the Advocate Commissioners. 9. On perusal of the report and the map, it seems that Bablu Shukala is oc- cupying two rooms, kitchen, courtyard and a toilet. Mamta Shukala, on the other hand, is jn occupation of three bed-rooms, kitchen, toilet, veranda and passage on the first floor. The main dispute relates to a room on the ground floor which contains a Safe and also the water pump. Both the parties have put their locks in this room. Each of the parties claims to have the keys to the Safe. This Court asked the parties to produce the keys of the Room as well as the Safe. Both, the petitioner and the respondent no. 11 have produced the keys of the Room and the Safe, which has been sealed and should be sent to the Court who is in seisin of the Title (Partition) Suit No. 5 of 1999 to be finally opened on the direction of the Court be- low after decision in the suit or any other application filed in this regard by the par- ties. 10. In view of the stands with re- spect to the dispossession is concerned, this C ourt really cannot pass any order considering the report of the Advocate Commissioners. I can of^y advise the par- ties to try and settle the^atter and com- promise their cases and als©advise them to co-operate with the Court hearing the suit. 10. In view of the stands with re- spect to the dispossession is concerned, this C ourt really cannot pass any order considering the report of the Advocate Commissioners. I can of^y advise the par- ties to try and settle the^atter and com- promise their cases and als©advise them to co-operate with the Court hearing the suit. Since, the suit has been filed in the year 1999, it is about time that the Suit should be decided and the petitioner and all other parties should co-operate with the Court to end this dispute one way or the other. 11. On the merits of the claim re- garding the gift deed, this Court can obvi- ously pass no orders. However, the Court below on an application being filed, may allow the parties to occupy their respec- tive shares. 12. Since, both the parties are hav- ing problems because of disconnection of the water pump, the parties jointly, or sepa- rately may install the water pump in their portions of the house. 13. The report submitted by the Ad- vocate Commissioners should be sealed and communicated to the Court of the Subordinate Judge-VI, Patna who is in seisin of Title (Partition) Suit No. 5 of 1999. Photocopy of the said report should be kept on the record of this case. The box of keys should also be sealed and be placed in the custody of the Court of the Subordinate Judge-VI, Patna who is in seisin of Title (Partition) Suit No. 5 of 1999. 14. This application is thus disposed of.