Back
2013 Supreme(Raj) 485
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.
Baljeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 229 of 2013
Decided On : 29-05-2013
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Dinesh Yadav, AAG, Mr. S.C. Purohit, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Advocate.
Police authorities cannot interfere with the property rights of a citizen without any authority of law.
Headnote:
POLICE INTERFERENCE - PROPERTY RIGHTS - ILLEGAL INDUCTION - POLICE PROTECTION - JURISDICTION - ARBITRARY ACTION - RESTORATION OF POSSESSION - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY: 1. Police authorities cannot interfere with the property rights of a citizen without any authority of law. 2. Police protection can only be given when directed by a competent court of law. 3. Police authorities have no jurisdiction to issue directions to authorities in another state. 4. Arbitrary and high-handed actions by police authorities will not be tolerated. 5. Possession of a property will be restored to the rightful owner if it was illegally taken away by police action. 6. Departmental enquiry will be initiated against police officers who acted arbitrarily and illegally.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Baljeet Singh, was residing in a house in Jaipur with his widow mother. The respondent, Rajesh, claimed to be his wife and had initiated various legal proceedings against him, including a criminal case, an application for maintenance, and a revision petition. The petitioner had also filed an application under section 7(A) of the Family Court Act, 1984 seeking a declaration that the marriage between him and the respondent was never solemnized. On 12.12.2012, the respondent submitted an application to the police authorities alleging that the petitioner wanted to solemnize marriage with another woman and requesting them to restrain him from doing so. The police authorities, without any authority of law, issued directions to the SHO of the police station concerned to provide protection to the respondent if she wanted to move into the petitioner's house. The respondent forcibly entered the petitioner's house on the same day and the petitioner was compelled to leave the house and take shelter in a hotel.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the directions issued by the police authorities were wholly illegal and not sustainable in law. The court also held that the respondent's entry into the petitioner's house was illegal and that the petitioner was entitled to restoration of possession of his house. The court further held that the actions of the police officers were arbitrary and high-handed and that they deserved to be deprecated. The court directed the Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan; Special Secretary, DOP and the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, to take appropriate steps for departmental enquiry in the matter against the respondent no.3.
Issues: 1. Whether the police authorities can interfere with the property rights of a citizen without any authority of law? 2. Whether police protection can be given without a court order? 3. Whether police authorities have jurisdiction to issue directions to authorities in another state? 4. Whether arbitrary and high-handed actions by police authorities will be tolerated? 5. Whether possession of a property will be restored to the rightful owner if it was illegally taken away by police action? 6. Whether departmental enquiry will be initiated against police officers who acted arbitrarily and illegally?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bishan Das and others v. State of Punjab & others- AIR 1961 SC 1570, which held that the executive action without any authority of specific rule of law, exhibits a callous disregard of the normal requirements of the rule of law apart from what might legitimately and reasonably be expected from a Government functioning in a society governed by a Constitution which guarantees to its citizens against arbitrary invasion by the executive of peaceful possession of the property. 2. The court also relied on the principle of law that police protection can only be given when directed by a competent court of law.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent no.5- SHO police station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, and DCP (West) Jaipur to take immediate steps for restoring the possession of house no.540, Nemi Sagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur to the petitioner within 30 days from today, with an intimation to this court. The court also directed the Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan; Special Secretary, DOP and the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, to take appropriate steps for departmental enquiry in the matter against respondent no.3.
Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.
The present writ petition has come up for consideration before this court in a unique situation where the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police personnels have, without any authority of law, inducted respondent no.6 in his residential house where he was residing along with his widow mother as a result of which he has been compelled to live in Hotel Raj Plaza, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. The said act of the respondents is in excess of their jurisdiction/authority and is an illustration of high handedness of the police authorities. Consequently, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under the Constitution of India to seek redressal of his grievance in the term that possession in house no.540, Nemi Sagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, be restored to him and his widow mother.
2. The respondent no.6, namely Rajesh, daughter of Laxmi Chand has claimed herself to be the wife of the petitioner whereas the said fact has been emphatically denied by the other side, namely; Baljeet Singh. According to the petitioner, the marriage between him and respondent no.6 was never solemnized. The petitioner had been living in the aforesaid house and the respondent no.6 was residing in plot no. 48, Behind Senapati House, Sain Colony, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur. According to respondent no.6, the marriage had been solemnized at Arya Samaj in Shastri Nagar, on 12.11.1994.
The respondent no.6 on the basis of the aforesaid claim of marriage initiated various proceedings, such as a criminal case by registering of FIR (399/2002) on 11.8.2002 at police station Sanganer, Jaipur, for the offence under section 498-A IPC; an application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Judge, Family Court no.1, Jaipur which was allowed on 22.11.2007 awarding maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month; a revision petition before the High Court against the said order of maintenance and thereafter a special leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is pertinent to note here that while deciding the said appeal (4247/2009), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had on 13.7.2009 passed the following order:
"The special leave petition is dismissed with an observation that any observation made in this matter shall not come in the way of the concerned court where the matter is pending regarding status of respondent herein."
In other words, the status of the parties is still to be adjudicated. Subsequently, the petitioner had preferred an application under section 7(A) of the Family Court Act, 1984 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jaipur seeking declaration about the merital status of the petitioner; that the marriage was never solemnized between the petitioner and respondent no.6 and they had never lived as husband and wife. The said proceedings are still pending.
3. It would not be out of place to mention here that prior to 12.12.2012, the respondent no.6 was residing at plot no. 48, Behind Senapati House, Sain Colony, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur. The said address was given by respondent no.6 in the application under section 127 Cr.P.C. and the notices issued by the learned Judge, Family Court as well as in criminal revision petition filed before the High Court, had been served on the said address. Therefore, it is amply clear that the respondent no.6 had been residing in the aforesaid house at Jhotwara, Jaipur.
4. It is in the month of December, 2012, the roots of the grievance of the petitioner lies which has given rise to the filing of the present writ petition. This time, the respondent police authorities has come on the scene. On 12.12.2012, an application came to be submitted by respondent no. 6 to respondent no.2 praying therein that the petitioner wants to solemnize marriage with Shakti Dahiya and, therefore, appropriate proceedings may be initiated and he be restrained from solemnizing the marriage. On the said application, the respondent no.3 Rohit Mahajan, Superi
