Back
1965 Supreme(Pat) 113
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai and A.B.N.Sinha JJ.
Kartik Lall
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 492 of 1963 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 19, 1965
Executive authorities are bound to respect and enforce the orders and decrees of the Civil Court.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 226 AND 227 - INTERFERENCE WITH POSSESSION - DECREE OF CIVIL COURT - DUTY OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITIES - SECTION 144 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - RESTRAINING ORDER - CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE - DISPUTED LAND - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Kartik Lall and his sons, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking an order and directions to restrain the opposite party from interfering with their possession of a disputed land. The petitioners had obtained a decree from the Munsif, affirmed up to the High Court, granting them a permanent injunction against the public in general and opposite party Nos. 4 to 15 in particular, restraining them from interfering with their possession. Despite the decree, the Sub-divisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, restraining the public generally (except Kartik Lall Sao) from going upon the disputed land. The petitioners alleged that this order was detrimental to them as it prevented them from constructing a house on the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Sub-divisional Magistrate was not fair in restraining the members of the public, including members of the family and employees of Kartik Lall Sao, from going upon the land. This amounted to stopping Kartik Lall Sao from constructing a house upon the disputed land which he was perfectly entitled under the decree of the Civil Court to construct. The court also observed that if the proceeding under Section 107, which was drawn up on the 37th May, 1963, is still pending, the Court concerned is acting in a very lethargic and leisurely manner.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sub-divisional Magistrate was justified in passing an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, restraining the public generally (except Kartik Lall Sao) from going upon the disputed land? 2. Whether the executive authorities are bound to respect and enforce the orders and decrees of the Civil Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Sub-divisional Magistrate was not justified in passing an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, restraining the public generally (except Kartik Lall Sao) from going upon the disputed land. This amounted to stopping Kartik Lall Sao from constructing a house upon the disputed land which he was perfectly entitled under the decree of the Civil Court to construct. 2. The court held that the executive authorities are bound to respect and enforce the orders and decrees of the Civil Court. If anyone does any act which tends to interfere with the performance of the decree and order of a Civil Court, the executive authorities must take necessary action in order to prevent the person from doing the act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application, subject to the observations made above.
K.Sahai, J.
1. This is an application by Kartik Lall and his sons under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution with a prayer to issue an order and directions, restraining the opposite party from interfering with their possession. The State of Bihar, the District Magistrate of Monghyr and the Sub-divisional Officer of Khagaria are opposite party Nos. 1 to 3. Opposite party Nos. 4 to 15 are some Mohammedans.
2. The relevant facts may be related briefly. There was a dispute between the petitioners on one side and some Mahomedans including opposite party Nos. 4 to 15, on the other relating to 3 kathas of land appertaining to plot No. 2025 under khata No. 153 in Mahalla Bishwanathganj. Ward No. 4, of the Notified Area Committee at Khagaria Petitioner No 1, as karta of his family, instituted Title Suit No. 34 of 1955 in the Munsif. 1st Court, Monghyr, for declaration of title to the disputed land and for issue of a permanent injunction, restraining members of the public in general and opposite party Nos. 4 to 15 in pirticular from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over that land. The suit was decreed by the Munsif on the 21 January, 1957. Title Appeal No. 23 of 1957 against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif was dismissed by the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge of Monghyr on the 30th June, 1959.
Second Appeal No. 1096 of 1959, which was filed in this Court, was dismissed by Raj Kishore Prasad, J. on the 15th March, 1961. The petitioners case is that they started constructing a house upon the disputed land, and then members of the Muslim community, including opposite party Nos. 4 to 15, began to interfere with them The matter went to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Khagaria who by his order, dated the 27th, May, 1963 (Annexure E), drew up a proceeding under S. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against some persons including some of the present opposite party Nos. 4 to 15. At the time, however, he passed an order under S. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, restraining the "public generally (except Kartik Lall Sao) from going upon the land of khata No. 153, khasra No. 2025."
3. The petitioners case further is that no action for execution of interim bonds under S. 117 (8) has been taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate against the opposite party, in spite of a prayer to that effect, nor has the main proceeding under S. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the opposite party been disposed of Their case further is that the order under S. 144 was really detrimental and injurious to them because Kartik Lall Sao alone could not construct the house which he and the other petitioners wished to construct upon the disputed land, and that the order under S. 144 was illegally kept in force by repeated extensions up the 17th September, 1963. Their case also that, since members of the Muslim community are likely to create a riot, the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Khagaria and the District Magistrate of Monghyr have posted constables on and near the disputed land in order to prevent members of the family and employees of Kartik Lall Sao from going upon it. It is in there circumstances that the prayer, which I have mentioned above, has been made by them.
4. I think that it must be well known to all officers occupying positions like that of a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate that and orders passed by the Civil Court must be respected. If anyone does any act which tends to interfere with the performance of the decree and order of a Civil Court, the executive authorities must take necessary action in order to prevent the person from doing the act. In the present case, the situation is very simple. If, as stated by the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 has obtained a decree from the Munsif, which has been affirmed up to this Court, and a permanent injunction has been issued under that decree to the public in general and to opposite party nos 4 to 15 in particular, restraining them from interfering w
