A court has inherent jurisdiction to order redelivery of possession of land to a party who has been dispossessed in contravention of an interim injunction.

Ahmad, J.

1. This is an application by the State of Bihar, who are defendants in the suit, against an order dated 5-5-1955, whereby the learned Munsif has directed the Nazir to give delivery of possession of the plot in dispute to opposite party No. 1 which, it was alleged before the learned Munsif, was taken possession of by the petitioner in spite of the order of interim injunction passed in the case on 6-5-1954.

2. The suit giving rise to his application relates to plot No. 5205 in Khata No. 291 which has an area of about 22 acre. In the survey record of rights it was recorded as ghairmazrua khas of the then Raja of Jharia. The case of the opposite party No. 1 who is the plaintiff in the suit, is that the then Raja of Jharia settled some lands with her as a tenancy holding including the plot in dispute, and since then she has been in possession of the same.

Long thereafter the estate of the Raja of Jharia vested in the State of Bihar by a notification issued under the Bihar Land Reforms Acton 27-10-1952. On the publication of that notification, it appears that the Revenue Subdivisional Officer, Giridih, issued a notice on 26-10-1953, to the Raja of Jharia requiring him to deliver possession of plot No. 5205 whereon at present a Bhandar stands or to show cause against the notice. On receipt of that notice, the Raja of Jharia showed cause stating therein that the plot in dispute was never used as office or kutchery for collection of rent and, as such, the State had no right to take possession of the same.

Thereafter it is alleged in the plaint that on 23-1-1954, the contractor of the State of Bihar forcibly and without any right entered into the Bhandar and began to dismantle its eastern room. At this the plaintiffs men objected whereupon the contractor stopped the work. But soon thereafter when the show cause petition of Raja of Jharia was finally rejected by the Revenue Department on 3-2-1954, the contractor again re-Started dismantling that room of the Bhandar. The plaintiff then, having failed in the Revenue Department, instituted the suit giving rise to this petition alleging therein, inter alia, that the plot in dispute was her private property and that it was not a part of the zamindari estate of the Raja of Jharia and further stating therein that in. fact village Telo wherein plot No. 5205 lies was not notified under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. She on these allegations, prayed that the defendants be restrained from dismantling, reconstructing and altering the Bhandar and also from dispossessing the plaintiff from it.

The suit was instituted on 6-3-1954, and along with it a prayer for an interim injunction was also made to restrain the State of Bihar from, disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the meantime. On the filing of the application the court issued the interim notice on the same day which was made absolute on hearing the parties on 6-5-1954. Against that order the State of Bihar went in appeal which was dismissed on 23-3-1955. Thereafter on 5-5-1955, the plaintiff made an application to the court that the plot in dispute which had been forcibly taken possession of by the defendants in spite of the order of injunction should be re-delivered to her. The court on hearing the parties passed the following order: Plaintiff files a petition and requisites for issue of delivery of possession through special peon ami Nazir may also be deputed to deliver possession. Nazir is directed to give delivery of possession. Party to deposit Nazirs cost and special peons costs (Rs. 16 and Rs. 4).

The present application is directed against this order.

3. Mr. Shahi, appearing for the State of Bihar, has contended that the order is without jurisdiction. According to his contention, the State of Bihar had already taken possession of the land in dispute long before the institution of the suit on 6-3-1954, and, therefore, the overt act, if any, which had been committed by the State of Bihar had not been committed after