Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 700 (GAU)

R. Sopu Angam v. State of Nagaland

2017-05-31

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : S. Serto, J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order No. VLS/6/2007-D/1748-49, dated 02.01.2017, of the District Magistrate, Dimapur, passed under section 145 of Cr. P.C., 1973 wherein the petitioner herein was directed to vacate a disputed land under Patta No. 6 Dag No. 3 of Dimapur Mouza situated between 4th Mile and 5th Mile at Dimapur to facilitate the respondent No. 4 to enter into the land and took possession of the same. 2. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Imkong Jamir, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned Sr. Government Advocate on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 3. The facts of the case which are necessary for deciding the issues in this case briefly stated are as follows; That the petitioner's elder brother who was allotted 20 acres of land between 4th Mile and 5th Mile at Dimapur vide order No. II-5/VLS/66-65/1688-98, dated 08.05.1967, and additional land of 11 acres at the same place vide order No. 6/39, dated 12.04.1968, by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dimapur and the District Magistrate, Kohima, respectively transferred the same to the petitioner and the same was mutated in his name on 12.10.1988. The land was well demarcated by Revenue Department and in 1969-70 patta were issued under Patta No. 6 Dag No. 3 of Dimapur Mouza in the name of the petitioner's brother before it was mutated in his name. While continuing to enjoy the land a dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4, therefore, litigations between them followed, but to cut the story short, the petitioner filed four Civil Suits being Civil Suit No. 58/16, C.S No. 59/16, C.S No. 60/16 and C.S No. 61/16 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dimapur for declaration of title over the suit land and also filed four C.M.Cs under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur, in all those four C.M.Cs directed the parties to maintain status quo of the suit land and also restrained the respondent from carrying out further developmental work in the suit land till the returnable date. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur, in all those four C.M.Cs directed the parties to maintain status quo of the suit land and also restrained the respondent from carrying out further developmental work in the suit land till the returnable date. While the suits were under trial and the C.M.Cs were pending with such interim orders in place the respondent filed an application before the District Magistrate, Dimapur alleging that the petitioner had violated the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and prayed for necessary action. In response to the petition, the District Magistrate, Dimapur, passed the impugned order. The operative portion of the order is given here below:- "4.The instant case in hand as per the counsel for the petitioner is the provision under Section 145 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayed for eviction the perpetrators from the encroached disputed land and restore the possession to Model village. 5. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is the lawful owner of the plot of land measuring an area of 90B-03K-00Ls bearing Patta No. 06, Dag No. 3 at model village as per the Chitha records and other documents and prayed to issued restraining order against the petitioner from disturbing the respondent from carrying out developmental activities and enjoying the possession of the same as the lawful owner. 6. Perused both the written statements and evidences. Hence, this court is satisfied to accept the petition and invoke the provisions under Section 145(4) of Criminal Procedure Code and allow the petitioner to take possession of the land in question. The respondent is hereby directed to vacate the land in question within 1 (one) month from the issue of this order. 7. However, this order shall have no bearing on the issue of title over the land in question which shall be subject to the decision of the civil court." Aggrieved by the above stated impugned order, the petitioner has come to this Court praying for quashing and setting aside of the same. 4. The question is whether the District Magistrate, Dimapur can pass such order while the matter is sub judice before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), specially when injunction orders under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC are in place. 4. The question is whether the District Magistrate, Dimapur can pass such order while the matter is sub judice before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), specially when injunction orders under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC are in place. From the operative portion of the order one can easily make out that the District Magistrate, Dimapur, had gone out of his bound in passing such order when the matter is sub-judice before the competent Civil Court which also had passed the interim order under appropriate provisions of law after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. If any of the parties is aggrieved by such order they should have approached the right forum under appropriate provisions of law or if any of the parties have violated the order, the aggrieved party could have approached the Civil Court for redressal of the same. The Civil Court has power and jurisdiction to implement its order passed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 under Rule 2 A of the same Order. The Civil Court also has the power under Rule 4 of the same Order to discharge, or varied, or set aside such order on application made by any party dissatisfied with such order. Therefore, the drawing of such proceeding under section 145 of Cr. P.C, 1973 by the District Magistrate, under such facts and circumstances, was unwarranted and uncalled for. Further, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the move of the respondent in filing the petition before the District Magistrate was to flout the law, therefore, it was the duty of the District Magistrate to have protected the law and not encourage lawlessness by taking up such petition from a party in a Civil Suit. In view of the above, the impugned order of the District Magistrate, Dimapur, dated 02.01.2017, is quashed and set aside.