Subhash Kumar Chaudhary vs State of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Pat) 502

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Cr. WJC No.1571 of 2023
(15.1.2024)
Subhash Kumar Chaudhary & Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates:
For the Petitioners: M/s Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Adv., Diwakar Upadhyaya, Preety Kunwar.
For the State : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18.
For the Resp No. 12 : M/s Arun Kumar, Swapnil Kumar Singh.

Headnote:
Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 – Section 15 – Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 – Section 6(12) – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ petition seeking direction respondents to protect life and liberty of petitioners as well as forcible dispossession from land – There exists a serious land dispute between parties – There is a dispute between parties over shed constructed on disputed plot but on date of measurement, there is no evidence of erection of boundary wall – Inquiry Committee has observed in its opinion that in terms of Section 6(12) of Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, no mutation should be allowed where there is dispute pending in respect of holding before a competent court of law – A prima-facie view has been taken by Committee – Competent authority under relevant statute shall take appropriate steps to correct wrong by C.O. – This is beyond comprehension that S.H.O. will get measurement done on his own – Procedures required to be followed in terms of provisions of Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009, particularly Section 15 thereof, has not been followed – Boundary wall which was erected by respondents shall be demolished immediately/forthwith by C.O. – Director General of Police shall ensure that possession of petitioners in shed in question, shall be restored – Title suit or any other legal proceeding between parties which are pending or may be instituted shall be considered and decided by competent court/forum/authority, in accordance with law – Writ application allowed. (Paras 19, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32 and 33)

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—This writ application has been filed seeking the following reliefs:—

“(i) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/reaction commanding the respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners as well as forcibly being dispossessed by Respondents Nos. 8 to 11 with the help of local administration especially with the help of local police officials over the land appertaining to Mauza Fatehpur, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur, C.S Plot No. 266, New Survey Plot No. 28, pertaining No. 122(Old), 407 (New).

(ii) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the respondents to lodge criminal case against the respondents Nos. 8 to 11 on the information on 06.07.2023 given by the petitioners before all the respondents as well as before Competent authority for institution of criminal case against them with regard to illegal acts and omission by said private respondents.

(iii) For issuance of appropriate writ/orders/ direction commanding the respondents to protect the possession of the petitioner over the aforesaid land which is being threaten by private respondents No. 8 to 11 to be dispossessed forcibly acting as MIGHT IS RIGHT instead of RIGHT IS MIGHT.”

2. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 1 of 2023 to add some more prayers. The said I.A. has been allowed. The prayers added to the main writ petition are as follows:—

“(a) The respondent authorities, especially respondents no. 2 to 7 may be directed to, immediately restore the possession of the petitioners, over their plots in question, wherefrom on 10.09.2023 these petitioners have been dispossessed forcibly by respondents no. 6 Circle Officer, Sabour Bhagalpur and 7 the S.H.O. Industrial Area (Zero Mile O.P) Sabour Police Station, Bhagalpur in collusion with the private respondents and the possession has been handed over illegally to the private respondents; and

(b) The actions of the respondent authorities especially respondents no. 6 & 7, dated 10.09.2023, whereby the petitioners were dispossessed from their plots, shops, and residence by the local administration and police may be declared as illegal, bad in law, beyond their jurisdiction, arbitrary and malicious and an appropriate order may be passed against the concerned and responsible authorities; or

(c) The respondent authorities may be directed to register F.I.R. against the persons involved in this crime and also to take proper legal actions against the erring officers, or

(d) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

Brief facts of the case

3. It is the case of the petitioners that one Baldev Mandal was the khatiyani raiyat of Old Khesra No. 266, New Plot No.5 appertaining to Khata No. 122 (old) 407 (new) measuring an area of 2.76 decimal (one kattha, thirteen dhurs, six dhurki and eight purki) in Mauja-Fatehpur, P.S.-Sabaur, District-Bhagalpur. Baldev Mandal and his son Ramswaroop Singh executed a sale deed being Sale Deed No.4766 dated 19.05.1969 in favour of one Manorama Karn, wife of Nityanand Karn, resident of Kewanitola, Aurangabad, Gaya. A copy of the sale deed dated 19.05.1969, executed in favour of Manorama Karn is Annexure ‘1’ to the writ application.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that Naresh Chandra Karn, son of Nityanand Karn executed two sale deeds on 11.09.2013 in favour of petitioner nos.1 and 2 respectively and conveyed 2.76 decimal of land in favour of each of the petitioners. Copies of the two sale deeds are Annexure ‘2’ and ‘3’ respectively. The petitioners claim that since after purchasing the property in question, they were coming in peaceful possession over the same.

5. It is alleged that grandson and daughter-in-law of the original khatiyani raiyat, namely Baldev Mandal, created a hindrance in the peaceful possession of the petitioners as they executed a sale deed on 17.07.2022 in favour of Shri Rishav Raj, son of Vijay Kumar Singh and his wife Nisha Kumari (respondents nos. 12 and 13 respe