Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1521 (JHR)

Lakhan Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-07-11

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Government Pleader-VI assisted by Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, Associate Counsel to Government Pleader-VI appearing for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "(a) For, the direction upon the respondents especially respondent no. 3 to 4 not to implement the trust deed dated 13.09.2011, as it has been created by the respondent no. 4, 5 & 6, just to oust the petitioners from their respective shops, as they are tenant of the trust Sri Sri 1008 Sri Baba Pathalbaba Trust, and doing their business from Last more than fifty years and regularly paying rent, (for example petitioner no. 3, whose agreement was entered into 27.04.2011 and the agreement is for 11 years), since the respondent no. 4 and 5 has already taken advances from various persons of the area on the name of providing them the same shop by ousting the poor shop owner''s. (b) For, the direction upon the respondent no. 3 to submit before this Hon''ble Court, the original record of the trust, which was illegally registered in favour of family, who is close one of respondent no. 4, ousting the earlier trustee under the threat & coercion by the respondent no. 4 contrary to the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 (adopted in Jharkhand) and against the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution of India and more so manipulating the entire sequence of events just the oust the 50 years old tenant of the trust for the personal end of the respondent no. 4. (c) For, the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the deed of trust created on 13.09.2011 (Annexure-3) as it is against the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution of India and provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act 1950 (adopted by the State of Jharkhand)." 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if an observation is made by this Court that the petitioners, being the tenant over the shops situated on the property, will not be dispossessed without following the procedure of law. Counsel for the petitioners submits that he would be satisfied if an observation is made by this Court that the petitioners, being the tenant over the shops situated on the property, will not be dispossessed without following the procedure of law. He submits that the trust deed has been challenged because of the reason that the petitioners had an apprehension that they will be thrown out of the property without following the procedure of law. 5. Upon this, counsel for the respondents submits that the authorities of the respondents are law abiding citizens and there is no question of taking law in their own hands. They are bound and committed to follow the procedure established by law. 6. Counsel for the respondents have further submitted that the petitioners are duty bound to pay rent to the respondents as admittedly, they are the tenants over the property. 7. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and considering the submission of the respondents, this Court finds that the legality and validity of the trust deed involved in this case cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and so far as the apprehension of the petitioners is concerned, that appears to be unfounded in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents. 8. Considering the aforesaid submission of the respondents, the grievance/apprehension as expressed by the counsel for the petitioner which led to filing of the writ petition ,does not survive any longer and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.