Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 185 (JHR)

Pramod Lakra v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-05

P.P.BHATT

body2013
ORDER By the Court.–Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he has flied a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No.6 stating, inter alia, that in pursuance of order dated 26.7.12 pas'ied by SAR Court, the petitioner filed an application on 12.1.2013 and for compliance of the order of the learned SAR Court, immediately one A.S.I., namely Simon Soy was deputed to stop the construction work and accordingly the ASI along with police force went to the spot at 3 p.m. and stopped the work and since then the status quo is being maintained and no construction work is going on the said plot. It is further submitted in paragraph 8 to the counter-affidavit that for the same plot previously a proceeding was initiated before S.D.M., Ranchi at the instance of one Shekhar Lakra and others wherein, the petitioner, Pramod Lakra and others were the second party in the said Misc. Case No. 1815/ 2012. It is further stated that in para 2 of the Misc. Case it is alleged that the members of the second party taking advantage of the situation, started the construction of wall since 20.9.2012 and, therefore, a proceeding was drawn under Section 144, Cr PC on 29.9.2012. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to a Tribal Community and the land in question is also Tribal Land and therefore it cannot be transferred to non-tribal in view of the provision contained in Section 46 of the CNT Act. However, an attempt has been made by the land grabber to snatch the land of the Tribal by flouting the order of the SAR Authority and the construction is carried out on the spot and therefore, an enquiry is required to be conducted so as to ascertain the correct and present position of the spot. It further appears that in SAR Case No. 122/2010-11, an order dated 26.7.12 has been passed with regard to stoppage of work till the final disposal of the proceeding and accordingly an intimation was sent to the Lalpur Police Station. From perusal of the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No.6 and more particularly, in view of averments made in paragraph-7, it appears that immediately steps were taken by the police authorities and accordingly the work has been stopped on the site as per order passed by the SAR Authorities and at present, no construction work is going on. From perusal of the counter-affidavit, filed by respondent No.6 and more particularly, in view of averments made in paragraph-7, it appears that immediately steps were taken by the police authorities and accordingly the work has been stopped on the site as per order passed by the SAR Authorities and at present, no construction work is going on. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that respondent No. 7 has committed fraud and obtained fraudulent decree by entering into a compromise before the Competent Civil Court and the said proceeding has been challenged by way of filing a Misc. Case No. 26/10, which is pending before the learned Munsif, Ranchi. However, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly, in view of the order passed by the SAR Court, strict and proper compliance is also required to be made by the authorities concerned. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention to the averment made in para-7 to the counter-affidavit, submitted that the work has been stopped but the interference of respondent No. 7 and his persons is still going on at the spot and they are creating disturbance and nuisance at the spot and not allowing the present petitioner to visit the said spot. So far as this allegation is concerned, the proceeding has been drawn under Section 144, Cr PC on 29.9.12 and the said proceeding is also going on and therefore, it would be just and proper for this Court not to intervene with such proceeding but it is expected by the authorities concerned to deal with and decide the proceeding in accordance with law by giving reasonable opportunities of being heard to the parties. Moreover, the concerned police authorities shall take necessary steps in view of order passed by SAR Court, so that the interest of the petitioner, who belongs to a Tribal community can be protected and cannot be allowed to affect adversely and the order passed by the competent Court can be complied with. 5. The learned SAR Court shall also make endeavour to deal with and decide the proceeding in accordance with law, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. So far as Misc. 5. The learned SAR Court shall also make endeavour to deal with and decide the proceeding in accordance with law, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. So far as Misc. Case No.26/10 is concerned, learned Munsif, Ranchi shall also deal with and decide the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the life of the petitioner is also in danger as he has received serious threat from respondent No. 7 and other anti-social elements persons acting at behest of respondent No.7, therefore, the petitioner shall approach the S.S.P., Ranchi by making proper application intimating this fact and the SSP, Ranchi shall take necessary steps regarding protection of the petitioner, as required, looking to the situation. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.