Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 514 (JHR)

Lal Dharma Raj Nath Shahdeo v. State of Jharkhand

2013-04-17

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to quash the letter contained in Memo no. 1068/Go. Ranchi dated 10.05.2012 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi directing the Circle Officer, Nagari Block and Circle Inspector of the same Block to maintain law and order with sufficient police force for measurement and erection of the boundary wall of the private respondent no. 7 over a piece of land situated at village533, 488 and 492, Khata no. 1, Thana no. 133, Mauza Daladali, Anchal Nagri, District Ranchi measuring total of twelve (12) acres. 3. The little background is required for appreciating the present grievances raised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 7 had approached this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 417 of 2010 with a prayer to direct the respondent authority to save life and property of the petitioners and his family members from the private respondents, who are bent upon to capture the entire property of the petitioners by adopting means with the help of close relatives and police personnels at Ranchi. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the petitioners were made a party originally in the writ petition but they they were deleted on 22.07.2011 before the final order was passed and as such, they did not get any occasion to oppose the prayer made by the respondent no. 7 in the said writ petition. However, this Court passed the following order in the said writ petitioner: “Order no. 04 Dated 22 July , 2011 Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent nos. 6 to 12 are not the necessary parties and prays for deleting their names from the cause title. He is permitted to do so. Learned senior counsel further prays that the order similar to the orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 436 of 1999 on 18.8.1999 (Annexure2) and W.P. (Cr) No. 203 of 2003 on 18.10.2003 (Annexure3), may be passed. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the State, referring to the paragraphs6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner has never approached the police by any written application. Mr. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the State, referring to the paragraphs6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner has never approached the police by any written application. Mr. Roy denied and disputed this position and submitted that a written request was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, who in turn, forwarded the same to the Officer in-Charge, Ratu, Ranchi (Annexure5), but no action has been taken. Be that as it may, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh request to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi who will look into the matter and if satisfied with the request of the petitioner, will do the needful, in accordance with law. With this observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.” 4. The perusal of the said order indicates that this Court did not enter into the merits of the controversies raised by the said petitioners, respondent no. 7 herein but simply permitted him to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi with a request to look into the matter and if satisfied on the request of the petitioners, will do the needful in accordance with law. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that thereafter the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi has passed the impugned order purportedly acting upon the directions of this Court and directed the Circle Officer and Circle Inspector, Nagri Block to deploy the police force to ensure construction of boundary wall of the respondent no. 7 on the lands described hereinabove. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi had acted beyond the authority of law in a dispute between the private parties and such an order could not have been passed, which is amenable to the writ jurisdiction and, therefore, the same is required to be interfered. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 submits that the writ petitioner had approached the court of Subordinate Judge, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 633 of 2011 in respect of the same subject matter of the property, in which not only the private respondents but also the State Officials including the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the Circle Officer and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, have been impleaded as defendants. It is submitted that in the said Title Suit the plaintiff/petitioner had sought perpetual injunction for restraining the respondents from forcible dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit property or any part thereof of the suit property described in schedule B of the said plaint, which matches with the descriptions of the property in the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the petitioners had also preferred injunction petition seeking temporary injunction before the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi in the same suit for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession over the suit land, which had, however, been refused by order dated 24.2.2012, which is contained in AnnexureR7/B of the counter affidavit filed by the private respondents. By the said order, the trial court has rejected the prayer for temporary injunction made by the petitioners and as such petitioners thereafter preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5 of 2012 before the court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, being aggrieved by the said refusal of temporary injunction. The said miscellaneous appeal is still pending. 8. It is the contention of private respondent no. 7 that petitioners have approached this Court for the present relief when they have already invoked the parallel remedy before the competent civil court in the Title Suit No. 633 of 2011 and had been denied the interim relief. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 7, therefore, submits that this Court in the circumstances, should not interfere in the writ petition and relegate the parties to the forum of the competent Civil Court, where they are already agitating amongst themselves in respect of the same subject matter. 9. Learned counsel for the State respondents supports the case of the respondent no. 7 and also submits that the mutation is already in favour of the family members of respondent no. 7 in respect of the same land and a petition seeking mutation of the said land filed by the petitioner had been rejected. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 8 submits that he has also interest in the part of the suit property on the basis of an agreement. 7 in respect of the same land and a petition seeking mutation of the said land filed by the petitioner had been rejected. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 8 submits that he has also interest in the part of the suit property on the basis of an agreement. He has further submitted that he had preferred a Criminal Writ Petition being W.P.(Cr.) No. 223 of 2011 with a prayer for recalling the order passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 417 of 2010 dated 22.7.2011 as he was not heard before the order was passed though being an affected party. 11. I have heard counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the relevant material on records including the impugned order. The facts, which have been narrated hereinabove, disclose that for the same subject matter of the property the petitioners had preferred a Title Suit bearing no. 633 of 2011 before the competent court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ranchi. They had also preferred an injunction petition seeking temporary injunction for restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering in the enjoyment of the possession of the property of the petitioners. Not only the private respondents but the State respondents including the Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police as well as the Circle Officer, Ratu, Ranchi are also impleaded as defendants in the said case. The injunction petition had been refused by the concerned court vide order dated 24.2.2012. The petitioners, admittedly, have preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal being aggrieved by the said order being M.A. No. 5 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which is still pending. 12. In these circumstances, therefore, it appears that the petitioners had invoked the forum of the competent civil court for adjudication of the rights relating to the same subject matter of the property and for the relief i.e. permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioners. The order, which was passed by this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 417 of 2010 did not inter into the merits of the controversy and it was simply disposed of with an observation that the petitioners are permitted to make a request before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, who may look into it and on being satisfied, will do the needful in accordance with law. This Court did not direct either any of the State respondents to depute or not to depute police force for the said purposes. In any case, the petitioners being aggrieved by the action of the State as well as the private respondents have invoked the jurisdiction of competent civil court where the matter is still pending. Therefore, the petitioners can not be allowed to agitate the same grievances by way of the present writ petition invoking the parallel remedies. 13. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order granted earlier also stands vacated. 14. I.A. No. 2312 of 2012 stands disposed of.