Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1018 (JHR)

Sahdeo Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2016-07-11

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Though it appears that respondent no.5 has entered appearance and filed counter affidavit, but no one is present on his behalf today. Petitioner and respondent no.5 appear to be fighting over a piece of land under Khata no. 27, Plot No. 586, Mauza Upraili, Circle Dhanwar, Giridih having an area of 0.16 ¼ acre, as proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated at the instance of the respondent no.5 leading to Case No. 670 of 2010 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Giridih and passing of the order dated 26.6.2010. That order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2010 by the petitioner but due to efflux of time it was rendered infractous as per the order dated 15.9.2010(Annexure-1) recorded in the said revision petition by the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih. Thereafter, admittedly there has been no fresh initiation of proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. However on certain directions issued by the S.D.M., Giridih, the Circle Officer, Dhanwar initiated Misc. Case No. 15/2012-13 in respect of the same piece of land where in after hearing both the parties, the order dated 30.1.2013 (Annexure-3) was passed by the respondent no.4, Circle Officer, Dhanwar, which has aggrieved the petitioner to approach this Court. Respondent no.4 has proceeded to observe that case of the first party i.e. respondent no.5 appears to be stronger in respect of the said piece of land vis-a-vis 2nd party i.e., the present petitioner. The observations recorded therein have been questioned as being prima facie determination of right, title of the private party by the Circle Officer, Dhanwar in the nature of the proceeding before the competent Court of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even the counter affidavit of the respondent-State at Annexure-B, where under a direction was issued by the S.D.M. dated 16.7.2014 deputing the Circle Officer, Dhanwar as Magistrate in order to maintain law and order relying upon the earlier order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C in case No. 670 of 2010 also leads to the same conclusion that no fresh proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C has been initiated and the authorities are exercising powers in an irregular manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that observations made in the Misc case No. 15/12-13, Annexure-3 by the Circle Officer, Dhanwar should be wiped out as that would amounts to determination on his part without the right, title of the private respondent being adjudicated in a competent Court of law. He further submits that in case of any apprehension of breach of peace, it is always open to the respondent authorities of the District to initiate proceedings under relevant provision of Cr.P.C and deploy force and Magistrate to maintain peace and tranquility in respect of the said piece of land. 4. Learned Government Advocate submits that observation made in the misc. case by the Circle Officer, Dhanwar, Annexure-3 should not meant to be determination of right, title and ownership of the private parties on the disputed land in question, which is however always open to them to agitate before competent Court having civil jurisdiction. Respondent authorities however on being faced with imminent threat to peace and tranquility have to take recourse by deployment of Police force and Magistrate at such places as seems to have been done by Respondent no3, S.D.M, Giridih. Be that as it may, learned Government Advocate submits that in case of apprehension of breach of peace in respect of said piece of land, respondent authorities on receipt of any such complaint or information would proceed in accordance with law and the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The affidavit of respondent no.5 defends the observations of the Circle Officer, Dhanwar and seeks to refer to the merit of the claim of the private respondent in respect of the said piece of land. 6. Having considered the rival pleas of the parties in the light of relevant material pleaded on record, this Court does not need to make any comment on the merit of the claim of the private parties in respect of the piece of land disputed amongst themselves. In that sense, observations if any, made by the respondent no.4 in Misc case no. 15/12-13(Annexure-3) should not be meant to be read as any determination of right, title and ownership of the parties on the said piece of land. In that sense, observations if any, made by the respondent no.4 in Misc case no. 15/12-13(Annexure-3) should not be meant to be read as any determination of right, title and ownership of the parties on the said piece of land. It is however always open to the respondent authorities to take effective lawful steps to prevent breach of peace and tranquility in respect of the said piece of land on any such complaint or information in accordance with law and provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it to the private parties to settle their claims relating to the right, title and ownership in appropriate Court of law where questions of fact can be determined. Petition disposed of.