Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 862 (JHR)

Jaswant Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT : APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners herein approached this Court alleging that respondent authorities of the State have put a seal on the residential house situated over Plot Nos. 442, 443 and 444 khata No. 298 area 86 decimals under Mouza-Ramgarh, District Ramgarh. Consequently, they sought removal of the seal and restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the land in question. 3. Petitioners contend that property in question situate over Plot Nos. 442, 443 and 444 having an area of 2.86 acres under Khata No. 298 of Mouza Ramgarh in P.S. and District Ramgarh, are subject matter of proceeding under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of one Bhagwan Mishra where petitioner No. 2 has been noticed to appear. Petitioner No. 1 claims title of the said piece of land through his father namely, Late Mela Singh who purchased the same through Sale Deed dated 22.05.1944 from his predecessor-in-interest and also got the land mutated in the Circle Office, Ramgarh. Rent has also been regularly paid in respect thereof and petitioner no. 2 was appointed power of attorney holder to take care of the said property. However, respondents authorities of the State have forcibly evicted them. 4. Respondent-State have filed their counter affidavit and the matter was adjourned at the request of the petitioners on the previous date to enable them to file their rejoinder. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed on their behalf. 5. In the meantime, intervention application has also been preferred by way of I.A. No. 3120 of 2016 by the applicant Bhagwan Mishra son of Late Narayan Mishra, who contends himself to be a necessary party in the present matter. 6. Counsel for the intervenor contends that claim of the petitioners on the basis of unregistered sale deed of 1924 is untenable. Intervenor contends that he is exclusive owner of the property. Reference is made to the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Joganda Mal vs. Bhagwan Mishra, reported in 1989 BLJR 548 . It is contended that petitioner no. 2 is grand son of Joganda Mal, who had filed the aforesaid Second Appeal where the present applicant was the respondent. Reference is made to the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Joganda Mal vs. Bhagwan Mishra, reported in 1989 BLJR 548 . It is contended that petitioner no. 2 is grand son of Joganda Mal, who had filed the aforesaid Second Appeal where the present applicant was the respondent. The Second Appeal arose from the Eviction Suit No. 16 of 1973 against the said Joganda Mal, which succeeded in favour of the present applicant. Execution Case No. 07 of 1979 resulted in delivery of possession in favour of the applicant in the year 1991 through the process of the Court. Mutation of plots nos. 444/3434, 442, 443/3435 and 441/3437 measuring total area .75 acres under khata No. 2/317 and plot Nos. 443 and 444 measuring total area 0.16 acres under Khata No. 298 in village Ramgarh was allowed in favour of the applicant vide order dated 22.01.1964, Annexure-C passed by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh in Misc. Case No. 90A/62-63. He has been paying rent in respect of the said property. Counsel for the Intervenor has sought impleadment of the Intervenor as private respondent in the instant case to oppose the prayer of the writ petitioner. 7. Respondent-State in their counter affidavit have given a sequence of facts in respect of disputed property and refer to the litigation in respect of the aforesaid plots at paragraph-7(iii), which reads as under:- S. No. Case No. Name of Parties Name of the Court Remarks 1. Case No. 12/2000 U/s 144 Cr.P.C. Parmeshwar Singh vs. Bhagwan Mishra & Others SDM, Ramgarh Vacated in the name of Bhagwan Mishra On 14.04.2000 2. Ramgarh PS Case No. 230/2002 U/s 456, 379 & 120B of IPC State vs. Bablu Saluja and Others CJM Hazaribagh 3. Mutation Appeal Case No. 11/2015-16 Bhagwan Mishra vs. Anchal Adhikari, Ramgarh LRDC Ramgarh Pending for hearing 4. Misc. Case No. 12/14-15 Jaswant Singh vs. Bhagwan Mishra LRDC, Ramgarh Pending for hearing 5. Case No. 40/2016 U/s 144 Cr.P.C. Bhagwan Mishra vs. Ramesh Saluja @ Bablu SDM Ramgarh Proceeding challenged in the Court of Saluja PDJ Ramgarh vide Cri. Rev. Case -11/2016 6. Case-89/2016 U/s 107 Cr.P.C. Bhagwan Mishra vs. Ramesh Saluja @ Bablu Saluja SDM Ramgarh Pending 7. Cri. Rev. Case- 11/2016 Bhagwan Mishra vs. Ramesh Saluja @ Bablu Saluja Principal District Judge Ramgarh Pending 8. Rev. Case -11/2016 6. Case-89/2016 U/s 107 Cr.P.C. Bhagwan Mishra vs. Ramesh Saluja @ Bablu Saluja SDM Ramgarh Pending 7. Cri. Rev. Case- 11/2016 Bhagwan Mishra vs. Ramesh Saluja @ Bablu Saluja Principal District Judge Ramgarh Pending 8. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that land in question bearing plot nos. 442, 443 and 444 khata nos. 298 Mouza-Ramgarh area measures 86 decimals as such, where both the parties are claiming their right over the same i.e. the applicant-Intervenor Bhagwan Mishra and the present petitioners. The property, an abandoned small structure over a portion of the above land is not a dwelling house and is unfit for human residence and as per the local police report. Both parties were trying to occupy the said structure forcefully causing disturbance of peace and public tranquility. 9. In connection thereof, respondent no. 3 initiated proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. over the said land on the report of local police for restraining both the parties. Annexure-B are the police reports. They categorically contend that no person of either parties reside over the same land and no family or women or children were staying therein. On request of the police, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh deployed a Magistrate to give effect to the restraint order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh in Case No. 40 of 2016 under Section 144 of the Cr. P.C. SDPO, Ramgarh and the Magistrate found that both the parties are trying to enter in the said abandoned structure by using their muscle power. In those circumstances, in order to prevent breach of peace, the structure was put in temporary lock till the final proceeding. The dispute between the private parties is chronic and pending in the respective Courts. Hence, it is not possible to decide inter se dispute relating to property in a summary proceeding. Respondents are only trying to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace and public tranquility, which requires urgent steps to be taken. 10. Learned counsel for the State submits that nothing more need to be attached to the action taken by the respondent authorities in furtherance of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh. Certain photographs of dilapidated structure have also been annexed as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. Respondents have also stated that service of notice under Section 144 of the Cr. Certain photographs of dilapidated structure have also been annexed as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. Respondents have also stated that service of notice under Section 144 of the Cr. P.C. were affected by goswara upon the opposite party Ramesh Saluja @ Bablu Saluja vide Annexure-E. Petitioners have withdrawn Misc. Case No. 12/15 (Jaswant Singh vs. Bhagwan Mishra) on 01.04.2016 when the opposite party prayed to DCLR, Ramgarh to direct the petitioner to appear physically in the Court. Photocopy of the entire case record is enclosed as Annexure-D. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the wake of the aforesaid pleadings on record submits that action of the respondent-Authorities in sealing the premises was unwarranted, if at all made in furtherance of the execution of the order passed under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. Petitioners have also challenged the legality of Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. proceeding before the Revisional Authority. It is submitted that petitioners or the opposite party could have at best been prosecuted for breach of peace or the restraint order, however, sealing of the property was not at all warranted. It is also submitted that proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. have also been initiated against the petitioner at the instance of applicant-Intervenor. 12. I have considered the submission of the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on records. The reference of the factual details alleged and controverted by the respective parties have only been recorded herein above to show that the petitioners and applicant-Intervenor are in serous dispute over their claim to the said property. This dispute has led to initiation of the proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C. on the police report. The Executive and the Police Personnel are required to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace and public tranquility on account of such inter se dispute between the private parties and in furtherance of restraint order passed by the SDM, Ramgarh. 13. In the aforesaid state of rival claim over right, ownership, title and possession of the property, it is only the Competent Court of Law having civil jurisdiction, which can determine such claims on the basis of evidences on question of facts and other material evidences. Nothing more on that aspect needs to be observed in the present matter. 13. In the aforesaid state of rival claim over right, ownership, title and possession of the property, it is only the Competent Court of Law having civil jurisdiction, which can determine such claims on the basis of evidences on question of facts and other material evidences. Nothing more on that aspect needs to be observed in the present matter. Though this Court is of the view that the respondent-authorities of the State have acted in furtherance of the restraint order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh on a likelihood of breach of peace caused on account of the acts of the rival parties, but as the respondent-State authorities also say, sealing was only temporary. The respondent- authorities are obliged under law to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace and tranquility in the circumstances acting under the restraint order passed by the SDM, Ramgarh. They are also entitled to proceed in accordance with law against any of the parties indulging in any such breach of peace. In the event, the respondent-authorities find that the circumstances do not warrant continuance of the sealing of the premises in question, which they assert are not being used for the residential purpose by any of the parties, they would take steps to unseal the property leaving it to the respective parties to settle their claim of right, title and ownership of the property before the Competent Court of Law. However, as observed herein above so long, since there is a threat of breach of peace and tranquility, they are entitled to act in furtherance of the restraint order till its validity. 14. It goes without saying that on consideration of gravity of threat to peace and public tranquility in respect of the said premises, the superior authority of the District including the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh would take steps in accordance with law. 15. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. 16. I.A. No. 3120 of 2016 stands closed. Petition Disposed of.