IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
Cr. WJC No.623 of 2023
(3.11.2023)
Air Commodore Randhir Pratap
(Retd.) ... Petitioner
vs.
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Constitution of India—Article 226—Writ petition for restraining the C.R.P.F. personnel deployed for security of Respondent No. 7(Sri Rajiv Pratap Rudy in forcibly restraining/obstructing the petitioner from ingress and egress to his residential ancestral house and deploring the deployment as illegal—dignity of the petitioner has not been violated/interfered with with and/or furnished either by the C.R.P.F. personnel deployed at the residence of respondent no. 7 at Amnour or by respondent no. 7 himself—there appears to be family dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 and other family members, for which suit has already been filed by the petitioner for partition of the family properties before filing of the present writ application—before the date of incident, the elder sister of the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 had lodged complaints that the petitioner was trying to take possession of the ancestral house and lands forcibly and illegally—petitioner has not been able to make out a case for grant of reliefs, claimed by him, requiring interference by the H.C. in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction—writ application dismissed. (Paras 74, 75 & 76)
(1995)2 SCC 43, (2017)9 SCC 579, (2017)9 SCC 586, (2023)4 SCC 1, (2013)5 SCC 427, (2020)12 SCC 436, (2021)6 SCC 771, ((2019)8 SCC 729, (1992)4 SCC 61, (2019)2 SCC 329, 2017(3) PLJR 484, AIR 1964 SC 1419, (2020)6 SCC 387, (2003)6 SCC 230, AIR 1964 SC 685–Referred.
Anil Kumar Sinha, J. – The petitioner, who is a retired Air Commodore, has invoked the extra-ordinary criminal writ jurisdiction of this Court with a grievance that he has been denied access to his own ancestral house by the C.R.P.F. personnel, deployed in the security of respondent no. 7 and on his behest, the C.R.P.F. personnel restrained/obstructed the petitioner and his wife from entering into his ancestral home, situated at village Amnour, in the District of Saran. The respondent no. 7 is a sitting Member of Parliament from Chapra, Saran, and is also the own brother of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: –
(i) For declaring the acts of the C.R.P.F. personnel deployed for the security of the Respondent No.7 in forcibly restraining/obstructing the Petitioner from ingress and egress to his residential ancestral home in Village- Amnour Harnarayan, P.O. + P.S.- Amnour, District- Saran, Bihar 841401 on 25.12.2022 at the behest of Respondent No.7, as illegal and unconstitutional being violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed and protected under Articles 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India;
(ii) For restraining the Respondents Authorities/Officers/its personnel or anyone on their behalf particularly the Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 its officers/personnels from interfering with the enjoyment, possession and egress and ingress to his ancestral house situated in Village- Amnour Harnarayan, P.O. + P.S.- Amnour, District Saran and residential house situated at Shivanandan Bhawan, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road PS-Budha Colony, Town and District Patna, Bihar 800001.
(iii) For direction to the Respondent Nos 4 to 6 to register the FIR in view of the Complaint dated 25.12.2022 and 26.12.20222 filed by the Petitioner before the P.S.- Amnour, District Saran, Bihar 841401.
(iv) For directing the Respondent Authorities/Officers to provide adequate security with regard to the property situated in Patna at Shivanandan Bhawan, Boring Road, Nageshwar Colony, PS-Budha Colony, Town and District Patna, Bihar 800001 and at Amnour Village- Amnour Harnarayan, P.O. + P.S.- Amnour, District- Saran, Bihar 841401;
(v) To Direct the Respondents to pay compensation for violating the fundamental rights of the Petitioner guaranteed and protected under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India for the illegal, wrongful and tortious acts of the CRPF personnel deployed in the security of the Respondent No.7 by obstructing, intimidating and restraining the Petitioner and his wife from entering his ancestral home on 25.12.2022 and causing immense trauma and agony (both mental and physical) for which the quantum of compensation may be decided by this Hon’ble Court, and also the State and its officers who are under obligation and duty to protect and ensure enjoyment of the fundamental rights and holding them liable jointly and severally for which the quantum of compensation may be decided by this Hon’ble Court;
(vi) For direction to the Respondent No.1 and 2 for initiating an inquiry against the erring C.R.P.F. personnel and officials deployed in the security of the Respondent No.7 on 25.12.2022 in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(vii) For any other relief/reliefs if petitioner found entitle in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, is that the petitioner is a retired Air Commodore from Indian Air Force and is a war veteran, having participated, amongst others, in India-Pakistan War of 1971 and Kargil war of 1999. He was awarded with ‘Vishisht Seva Medal’ by the President of India for his extra-ordinary service to the nation. He retired in the year 2007-08 and thereafter he worked in the private airlines and was finally appointed as Flight Operations Inspector, Civil Aviation, Government of India from where he retired in the year 2020.
4. As claimed by the petitioner, he, along with his two younger
Indibly Creative Pvt. Ltd. vs. Government of West Bengal
K. S. Puttaswami vs. Union of India
Kuldip Mahaton vs. Bhulan Mahato (dead) by Lrs.
State of Uttarakhand vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj
Kaushal Kishore vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs. Manjit Kaur
Mohan Pandey vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt.)
Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T.
Writ petitions concerning property disputes between co-owners are impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution when alternative civil remedies exist, necessitating resolution in civil courts.
Point of law: when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twi....
The court affirmed that a temple, having established its title through civil court decrees, is entitled to police protection to enforce its rights against unlawful eviction attempts by others.
Point of Law - Where there is flagrant violation of the orders of the execution court and the alternate remedy found to be not efficacious, then police protection could be ordered.
The main legal point established is that a bona fide claim of right or title can protect a person from being convicted of criminal trespass, even if the claim is ill-founded in law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.