Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 150 (UTT)

Sau Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-04-04

K.M.JOSEPH, U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “a. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 to 5 to get complied the orders dated 07.09.2015, 30.11.2015 & 02.12.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, passed in Revision No. 151/2014-15, Sri Sau Singh & others Versus Sri Rati Ram & others. b. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 to 5 to provide protection to the Petitioner against the illegal acts of respondents no. 6 to 10.” 2. Very briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 are the cousin brothers of the petitioner; there is a property dispute; there is a suit for partition between the petitioner and his brothers on the one side and respondent Nos. 6 to 9 on the other; there is a preliminary decree by the Assistant Collector Class I and a final decree passed by him on 24.03.2012; but, yet, the shares could not be got prepared at the spot. Annexure No. 2 purports to be the judgment. There is reference to an agreement to maintain status quo and it is stated that, in breach of the same, attempt was made by respondent Nos. 6 to 9 to plough the land. An application was moved by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector dismissed the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner and his brothers filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which had passed an order of status quo on 07.09.2015 (Annexure No. 3). Despite the same, it is alleged that respondent Nos. 6 to 9, using machines, tried to vindicate their possession. There is reference to an application made under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure No. 4). It is further stated that there is an order passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure No. 5) directing the SHO to get complied the order. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application before the Additional DM/DM, Dehradun, who directed the Tehsildar to immediately get complied the order of the Hon’ble Court. It is further stated that there is an order passed by the Board of Revenue (Annexure No. 5) directing the SHO to get complied the order. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application before the Additional DM/DM, Dehradun, who directed the Tehsildar to immediately get complied the order of the Hon’ble Court. Petitioner has also produced Annexure No. 8 photographs of the spot and is before us on the basis that there is a duty to enforce the order of status quo passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. When this matter came up on 17.12.2015, we had issued notice in the following terms: “We are issuing this notice only for exploring the possibility of mediation between the parties as they are alleged to be close relatives.” 4. The parties were, thereafter, referred for mediation by order dated 09.03.2016. From the report sent, it is clear that the mediation has failed. 5. We have heard Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel appearing for the party respondents; and Mr. A.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the official respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to contend that the order passed by the Court is being flouted and it must be enforced. He also relied on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court. 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General would submit that a First Information Report has been lodged by the private respondents against the petitioner under Sections 147, 324, 452, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and a charge-sheet has also been filed. It is also submitted that, as far as breach of peace is concerned, the parties had been bound down by the order of the DM under Sections 107 & 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. We would think that what is involved is the enforcement of an order passed by the Board of Revenue, which, essentially, is an order of status quo, which is also noted to be an ex-parte order. No doubt, petitioner has a case that the party respondents are not appearing. The party respondents, on the other hand, would submit that they have appeared. Whatever that be, noticing the facts in this case, we are not inclined to give any relief, as prayed for by the petitioner. 9. No doubt, petitioner has a case that the party respondents are not appearing. The party respondents, on the other hand, would submit that they have appeared. Whatever that be, noticing the facts in this case, we are not inclined to give any relief, as prayed for by the petitioner. 9. Without prejudice to all the contentions of the parties to be raised in the competent forum and making it clear that we have not pronounced on the merits of the case relating to the property, which is pending consideration before the authority, the writ petition will stand dismissed. We make it clear that the authorities dealing with the disputes between the petitioner and the party respondents will decide the lis between the parties totally untrammeled by this judgment. No order as to costs.