Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 385 (UTT)

Anil Kumar v. District Magistrate, Haridwar

2024-06-03

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent 1 to 4 to provide appropriate police and administrative force to maintain law and order on the land of the petitioner depicted by Khasra No.170 situated in Village Saidpura Mewarkala District Haridwar while the petitioner removes the statue of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar from his above stated land. (ii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award cost of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he instituted a civil suit, O.S. No.117 of 2008, Anil Kumar Vs. Mustakeem and Others, against Mustakeem, Rajendra Sharma, R.K. Tyagi, Kali Ram and Teerath Singh (“the defendants”) for permanent injunction (“the suit”) regarding land Khasra No.170, situated in Village Saidpura, Mewarkala, District Haridwar (“the disputed land”). The suit was dismissed on 30.01.2014. The petitioner did move Civil Appeal No.6 of 2014, Anil Kumar Vs. Mustakeem and Others, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2014, passed in the suit, in the court of District Judge, Haridwar (“the appeal”). The appeal was decided on 28.02.2015 and the suit was decreed restraining the defendants in the suit, namely, Mustakeem, Rajendra Sharma, R.K. Tyagi, Kali Ram and Teerath Singh in interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the disputed land. 4. It has been the case of the petitioner that despite the suit having been decreed in appeal, the defendants continued interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner on the disputed land. The petitioner approached the police, but no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner did move a writ petition no.448 of 2016 (“the first writ petition”) before this Court seeking directions that the revenue authority may be directed to take a decision on the representation that was made by the petitioner. In the first writ petition, on 27.02.2016, the Court had directed the concerned revenue officer to decide the representation of the petitioner. In the first writ petition, on 27.02.2016, the Court had directed the concerned revenue officer to decide the representation of the petitioner. The chronology, thereafter, is as follows:- (a) The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, called a report from the police and ensured that interference is not made with the possession of the petitioner, but still interference continued and the petitioner was not permitted to work on the disputed land. (b) Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No.601 of 2016 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 29.06.2016, while recording the statement given by the learned counsel for the respondents in the petition that they would not cause any harm to the petitioner, and also given liberty to the petitioner to approach the Senior Superintendant of Police, Haridwar, as and when need arises. (c) The two of the defendants, namely, Tirath and Kaliram, did file a review application in the first writ petition, which was subsequently withdrawn by them. Thereafter, Tirath and Kaliram filed a civil suit OS No.76 of 2016 by concealing the fact of appeal and also by concealing that a decree is operating against them with regard to the disputed land. (d) The two of the defendants, Tirath and Kaliram, filed Writ Petition No.2218 of 2016 before this Court, which was dismissed on 16.08.2016. This Court has then observed that both, Tirath and Kaliram, had already appeared in a execution proceeding and had filed their objections as well. (e) In the execution proceedings, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was filed by two of the defendants, Tirath and Kaliram, which was registered as Misc. Case No.9 of 2016, in the court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Roorkeee, District Haridwar. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was dismissed on 01.09.2016. (f) Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that two of the defendants installed a statue of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, in the middle of the disputed land, in the intervening night of 2/3-9-2016. (g) The petitioner did file WPMS No.2508 of 2016, Anil Kumar Rana Vs. District Magistrate, Haridwar, in this Court (“the second petition”), seeking directions to remove the statute of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar kept in the disputed land. (h) The second writ petition was disposed of on 16.02.2017. (g) The petitioner did file WPMS No.2508 of 2016, Anil Kumar Rana Vs. District Magistrate, Haridwar, in this Court (“the second petition”), seeking directions to remove the statute of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar kept in the disputed land. (h) The second writ petition was disposed of on 16.02.2017. In Para 11 and 12 of the judgment, the Court observed as follows:- “11. I find that there has been a dispute about the ownership of land on which statue has been installed. All the respondents have disputed the claim of the petitioner about his ownership of land where statue has been installed. It is the case of private respondents that the land where statue has been installed does not belong to the petitioner. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate disputed question of fact about ownership of parties. Obviously, the remedy is before the civil court. It is a case of the petitioner that he has a decree in his favour from the civil court. If that is so, in that event, he is free to get the decree executed from the competent court. Every individual is free to utilize his land in the manner he wants to, but in a lawful manner. Even statue of a private individual or an idol of God can be installed. Court cannot direct the police authorities/administration to put or remove the statue. Only, in public interest petition, for greater public interest, public safety or safety of community, Court can consider such request. If land in question belongs to the petitioner, he is free to remove the statue from his land as he has right to utilize his land in the manner he wants to but in a lawful manner. If petitioner finds threat to his life, he can approach concerned police station. It is the duty of the official respondents to grant protection to every citizen, if there appears threat to his life. It is also their duty to maintain law and order.” “12. In view of the above discussion, no direction can be issued to the respondent nos.1 to 4 to remove statute of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar kept on khasra no.170 situated in Village Saidpura Mewarkala District Haridwar, which land, according to the petitioner, belongs to him. It is also their duty to maintain law and order.” “12. In view of the above discussion, no direction can be issued to the respondent nos.1 to 4 to remove statute of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar kept on khasra no.170 situated in Village Saidpura Mewarkala District Haridwar, which land, according to the petitioner, belongs to him. It is also made clear that this Court has not said anything about the ownership of the land in question. It is for the competent court to decide the same and, in case, dispute regarding land in question has already been decided by the competent court, concerned party, including the petitioner, is free to get the decree executed. If the land in question belongs to the petitioner, the petitioner is free to remove the statue of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, from his own land.” (emphasis supplied) 5. It is the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, the petitioner approached various authorities so as to assist them in removing the statue, but, the statue could not be removed, and, in fact, two FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the statue has been installed in the land of the petitioner so as to deny him the fruits of the judgment and decree passed in the suit. It is argued that when the defendants were unsuccessful in the execution proceedings, they installed the statue over the disputed property; it infringes the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, directions need to be given so that the statue may be removed from the place where it is installed illegally. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also argue that the petitioner is agreeable to shift the statue at the corner of his property so that he may use the remaining part of the property. 8. Learned State Counsel would submit that the second writ petition was filed by the petitioner for the same reliefs, in which directions have already been issued to the petitioner to approach the concerned civil court. Therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reply to it saying that the petitioner has tried his level best after the judgment dated 16.02.2017, passed in the second petition, to remove the statue and place it at a corner of the disputed land, but he is not successful. Therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reply to it saying that the petitioner has tried his level best after the judgment dated 16.02.2017, passed in the second petition, to remove the statue and place it at a corner of the disputed land, but he is not successful. Every time, the defendants, in collusion with other persons, obstruct in doing so. The petitioner had approached police also. The petitioner was required to deposit more than one lakh rupees for police assistance, but still it has not been done. It is also argued that, in fact, the police had installed a CCTV camera near the place of statue so that no person could remove the statue. 10. Earlier, the petitioner had filed the second writ petition bearing WPMS No.2508 of 2016, for removal of the statue of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, kept on the land of the petitioner in Khasra No.170, situated in Village Saidpura, Mewarkala, District Haridwar in the intervening night of 2/3-09-2016. That writ petition was contested. In that writ petition, the defendants were also parties. After hearing the parties, this Court had then, on 16.02.2017, declined to make any interference. In Paras 11 and 12 of the judgment, in the second petition, this Court has given reasons, which have already been quoted hereinabove. 11. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that in Para 11 of the judgment dated 26.02.2017, passed in the second petition, this Court has observed that, “This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate disputed question of fact about ownership of parties. Obviously, the remedy is before the civil court. It is a case of the petitioner that he has a decree in his favour from the civil court. If that is so, in that event, he is free to get the decree executed from the competent court.................................Court cannot direct the police authorities/administration to put or remove the statue.” 12. It may be noted that even in the second petition, the petitioner had sought directions to the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to remove the statue. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 in the second petition, i.e., WPMS No.2508 of 2016, Anil Kumar Rana Vs. State and Others, are, in fact, respondent nos. 1 to 4, as arrayed in the instant petition. 1 to 4 to remove the statue. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 in the second petition, i.e., WPMS No.2508 of 2016, Anil Kumar Rana Vs. State and Others, are, in fact, respondent nos. 1 to 4, as arrayed in the instant petition. In Para 12 of the judgment dated 16.02.2017, passed in the second petition, this Court has observed that, “In view of the above discussion, no direction can be issued to the respondent nos.1 to 4 to remove statute of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar kept on khasra no.170 situated in Village Saidpura Mewarkala District Haridwar, which land, according to the petitioner, belongs to him........................................... It is for the competent court to decide the same and, in case, dispute regarding land in question has already been decided by the competent court, concerned party, including the petitioner, is free to get the decree executed.” 13. In fact, the second petition was for the same cause, for which the instant petition has been filed. The allegations are same that after losing the civil suit, two of the defendants had installed the statue of Baba Sahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, in the intervening night of 2/3-09-2016. The second writ petition has been decided on merits after hearing the parties. The Court had declined to interfere in the matter. 14. This Court is of the view that for the same relief, same cause, successive writ petitions may not be entertained. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition. It deserves to be dismissed. 15. The writ petition is dismissed.