Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 381 (CAL)

Srikanta Roy v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-04-30

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI

body2012
Judgment 1. THIS writ petition was filed by the decree-holder of the property in question who got the decree from the Civil Court and also got possession by execution of the aforementioned decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 5th Court at Howrah. The decree was executed with the help of police and in presence of the Executive Magistrate. 2. ON the same date the judgment debtors who were evicted by lawful execution of the decree entered the premises with their men and agents and they threw out the lawful owner who got possession by execution of the decree. F.I.R. was lodged but the police did not take any step deliberately. After a gap of long period police have issued the charge-sheet and the matter is pending before the Criminal Court. The writ petitioner has come up before this Court questioning the inaction on the part of the police 2 authorities who are obliged to remove the trespassers from the premises of the writ petitioner. It was submitted that due to negligence and/or inaction on the part of the police authority the writ petitioner is ousted even in spite of having a decree obtained from the Civil Court and executed with police help. 3. THE police authorities sat tight by issuing a charge-sheet. No further step was taken to remove those persons who have criminally trespassed in the property of the petitioner by violating order of the Civil Court. It was submitted that the obligation on the part of the police authorities are to remove the judgment-debtor who have criminally trespassed into the premises of the writ petitioner. 4. LEARNED Counsel for the State appears and submits that the police have taken step and criminal case is pending. However, it was also submitted that they will remove the trespassers and ultimately the trespassers were removed and the writ petitioner was given back possession. I have considered the matter and the police authorities have now become active and ousted the miscreants who are trespassers in the property. 3 5. IN my view, in such type of cases where the decree holder after execution of the decree gets possession it is obligation on the part of the police authorities to help the decree-holder to protect his possession. 3 5. IN my view, in such type of cases where the decree holder after execution of the decree gets possession it is obligation on the part of the police authorities to help the decree-holder to protect his possession. It is an obligation on the police to see that anybody and everybody cannot in this fashion, by taking law in their own hand, encroach upon someone else's property. This is also an obligation on the part of the police authorities also to see that the order passed by the Court is not violated. The police authorities ought not to have waited for a long time without taking proper steps thereby removing the encroachers and/or trespassers from the property of the writ petitioner who got the possession by execution of civil court's decree in a lawful manner. 6. NOBODY should be allowed to take law in his own hand, nor he should be allowed to violate court's mandate and further, the law breaker should not be allowed to get premium since they have violated law. The police authorities should not sat tight by issuing a charge-sheet. It is important to note that public peace and tranquility and maintenance of law and order in the society is the duty of the police and in case police authorities failed to perform their duty properly the writ 4 petition is maintainable. Right to enjoy the property is protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Nobody is authorised or entitled to dispossess the lawful owner from his property by taking law in his own hand thereby creating a social chaos and causing law and order problem. 7. IN my view, the police ought to have removed the trespassers instantly in such type of cases and they ought to have taken such other or further steps on the basis of F.I.R. without awaiting for any order or any interference by any Court. With the aforementioned findings I dispose of this writ petition. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There would be no order as to costs.