Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 687 (JHR)

Md. Sultan Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2015-06-16

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 07.01.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur whereby, the Block Statistical Supervisor, Pakur was directed to ensure law and order, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. A proceeding vide Cr. Misc. Case No.357 of 2014 was instituted at the instance of one Dharmendar Singh against the petitioner and others. In the proceeding under Section 144 Cr. P.C. the petitioner and others filed their show-cause reply. After considering the reply filed on behalf of the opposite-parties, order dated 12.02.2015 in favour of the first-party was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur. It is recorded in order dated 12.02.2015 that the scheduled land is the only path for inlet and outlet to the house of the first party and it was being used by them since so many years. It was found that to the east of the 'Gali', a wall has been constructed by the opposite party without any window or door. Though, they asserted that they own 1½ feet land in the said 'Gali', they failed to produce any document to prove that they have possession over the Schedule-A land. Accordingly, the proceeding was vacated in favour of the first party and it was made absolute against the opposite-parties. 3. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 07.01.2015, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur has directed the Superintendent of Police to provide police force for which, the Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction. The learned senior counsel has submitted that in the garb of order dated 07.01.2015, a 'Gundaraj' is being run by the administrators. When the Court objected to use of such words without any foundation, the learned senior counsel vehemently retorted that he is entitled to make such submission. It is further submitted that by providing police force, the respondent-authorities have permitted the private respondents to encroach upon the land of the petitioner. Referring to Annexure4 to the writ petition, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that behind the back of the petitioner, the entire proceeding was initiated. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur is not exercising power of the civil court and therefore, he could not have passed order dated 07.01.2015. 4. Referring to Annexure4 to the writ petition, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that behind the back of the petitioner, the entire proceeding was initiated. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur is not exercising power of the civil court and therefore, he could not have passed order dated 07.01.2015. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand resisted the writ petition and submitted that in view of the earlier proceeding between the parties and the application submitted by the respondent no.7, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur has directed the Block Statistical Supervisor to maintain law and order. The allegation that the respondent-authorities have aided the respondent no.7 in encroaching upon the land of the petitioner, has been denied. 5. From the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner himself has claimed that the private respondents have tried to grab the land of the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed that he owns one and half feet land in the 'Gali', which is about 46 feet long. The Sub-Divisional Officer in order dated 12.02.2015 has recorded a finding that the opposite-parties failed to produce any document to establish that the Schedule-A land is in their possession. The said finding has not been challenged by the petitioner. Order dated 07.01.2015 is intended to maintain law and order in the vicinity. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have disclosed that the respondent no.7 made applications on 23.12.2014 and 31.12.2014 for providing police force for fencing his land. It has been asserted by the respondents that order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur is an administrative order intended to maintain law and order. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the impugned order dated 07.01.2015. It is noticed that vide order dated 07.01.2015 contained in memo dated 08.01.2015, a direction was issued to the Block Statistical Supervisor to take assistance of police force for ensuring law and order however, in the writ petition (para 1.a) and during the course of argument the learned senior counsel wrongly stated that vide order dated 07.01.2015, the Superintendent of Police has been directed to provide police force. The other prayers of the petitioner made in the writ petition would necessarily involve serious disputed questions of fact. The other prayers of the petitioner made in the writ petition would necessarily involve serious disputed questions of fact. It is apparent from the order dated 31.10.2014 that both the parties are claiming right, title and ownership over a piece of land. A question of title over the property cannot be decided by the Writ Court. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.