Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1938 (PAT)

Dharmendra Prasad v. State of Bihar

2011-09-09

JYOTI SARAN

body2011
ORDER Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Md. Anisul Haque, learned Assisting Counsel to AAG-9 appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner, a doctor by profession, is aggrieved by the non reactive and nonchalant attitude of the Gaya Administration in failing to restrict the anti social activities of the employees and staff of the Chandra Shekhar Janta College, Gaya, who are obstructing and preventing the petitioner from constructing his residential house cum clinic over the plot purchased by him bearing Plot No.7295 (old), 715/716 (new/part) holding no.224, Khata no.341, having an area of 6053 sq.ft. (4 kathas 9 dhurs) situated in Mohalla Tutwari, P.S.Kotwali, District-Gaya. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was purchased through a registered sale deed dated 8.12.2006 and which was mutated in his name. The petitioner contends that no sooner did he start the work of construction of his residential house cum clinic over the said plot, some anti social elements, at the behest of staffs and employees of Chandrashekhar Janta College, Gaya, interfered with the construction and prevented him from carrying out the on going construction. 4. It is contended that the representation of the petitioner addressed to the District Magistrate, Gaya was endorsed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya directing him to render necessary protection. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya, by letter dated 28.1.2009, in turn, directed the Officer-in-charge of Kotwali Police Station, Gaya to render all possible police and administrative help enabling the petitioner in the matter of construction of his house. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the directions aforesaid have remained paper transaction inasmuch as despite the aforesaid position, the district and police administration of Gaya have failed to really provide the necessary protection to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner represented before the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya on 22.5.2009, who again endorsed the request directing the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya to ensure help to the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya, on his part, again referred the matter to the District Magistrate, Gaya seeking necessary directions and the matter has rested there, as no help has been forthcoming either from the district administration or the police authorities of the district leading to the present writ petition. 6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya, on his part, again referred the matter to the District Magistrate, Gaya seeking necessary directions and the matter has rested there, as no help has been forthcoming either from the district administration or the police authorities of the district leading to the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention has referred to a bench decision of this court reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 474 (Uma Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors). Paragraph no.5 of the said judgment and order would be relevant for consideration and is being reproduced for the facility of reference. “This Court has considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and the intervener. In a civilized 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 his 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 man’s 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.” 7. It is rather distressing to note that even while the District Administration and the Police Authorities of Gaya have taken note of the predicament of the petitioner but except rendering lip service they have not taken effective steps for providing supportive help to the petitioner and the consequences are that the petitioner continues to be disturbed at the hands of the anti social elements with the district administration and the police administration remaining mute spectators. This is an antithesis to preservation of rule of law. This is an antithesis to preservation of rule of law. A citizen’s right to enjoy his property cannot be held at ransom by anti social elements. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Gaya and which is more of an apology of an action taken by an authority holding such high position while responding to citizens’ grievance. This court is aghast at the response of the senior most officer in the District Police Administration. Undoubtedly, the district administration as well as the Police administration have shirked from their responsibility and have simply shifted the responsibility to others and which circumstance does not augur well for a healthy society and maintenance of rule of law in the district. 9. Without going into any further details of the matter, this court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent nos.5 and 6, i.e. the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, District Gaya, to consider the grievance of the petitioner and after making necessary inquiry, ensure that there is no unwarranted and unauthorized interference by anti social elements with the construction work proposed to be carried out by the petitioner for construction of his residence cum clinic over his plot fully described in the sale deed dated 8.12.2006 as per the sanctioned plan. ?