SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Jhk) 1094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI NATH VERMA, J.
Yashwant Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Others – Opposite Parties
Cr. M.P. No. 356 of 2008
Decided On : 1.10.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.C. Mishra.
For the State: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra.
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 144, 145 and 146—Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908—Section 71-A— Parallel proceedings are not maintainable—Authorities under CNT Act have statutory power as that of civil court to declare title and possession of parties—Conversion/continuation of proceeding under Section 145 and subsequent order of attachment under Section 146(1) cannot be allowed to stand.

       (B) Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908—Section 258—Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court—Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suit within territorial jurisdiction where CNT Act is applicable—Authorities under CNT Act have statutory power to resolve title disputes.

Judgement Key Points

What is the legality of converting a Section 144 proceeding into Section 145 and attaching property under the CrPC where CNT Act proceedings are pending?

What is the authority of CNT Act authorities to declare title and possession and how does that affect parallel proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC?

What are the allowed circumstances for initiating a fresh Section 144 proceeding if there is apprehension of breach of peace?


ORDER :

1. Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 15.2.2008 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (in short the S.D.M.) Bermo at Tenughat in Case No. 19 of 2008 by which the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code had been initiated with respect to the land appertaining to Khata No. 34, Plot no. 96, area 0.53 acres and also the land of Khata No. 01, plot no. 53, area 3.10 acres of Mouza Burhsera within Dugda Police station, Bokaro and for quashing of the subsequent orders dated 28.2.2008 and 5.3.2008 whereby the said proceeding has been converted under Section 145 and order for attachment of the disputed land under Section 146(1) of the Code has been passed and the Officer-in-charge, Dugda Police Station has been appointed as receiver of the said land respectively.

2. Before I examine the initiation of the proceeding under Section 144 and its conversion under Section 145 of the Code, the background of the case is necessary to be discussed to appreciate the issue involved in this case. The case of the petitioner, as it appears from the record, is that the petitioner has been coming in possession of the disputed land appertaining to Khata no. 1, Plot no. 53, area 3.10 acres and Khata no. 34, Plot no. 96, area 0.53 acres of land of village Burhsera within Dugda Police station, Bokaro and substantial structures were also constructed over the said land. But the opposite party no. 3 Baneshwar Manjhi also claimed his right, title and interest over the aforesaid land and tried to disturb the uninterrupted possession of the petitioner. The said Baneshwar Manjhi opposite party no. 3 had earlier filed a land restoration case bearing no. 46 of 2006-2007 in the Court of L.R.D.C. Bermo at Tenughat against the present petitioner and other family members in respect of the disputed land and which was decided in his favour vide order dated 16.3.2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred land restoration appeal bearing appeal no. 5 of 2007 before the learned Additional Collector, Bokaro but the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2007. Whereafter, the petitioner and others moved before the learned Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag in Revision No. 134 of 2007 and prayed for stay of the orders of appellate court as well as original court and after hearing both the parties, the revisional court by order dated 20.11.2007 stayed the orders of both the courts. But on 14.11.2007, the opposite party no. 3 Baneshwar Manjhi along with his associates tried to forcibly enter and take possession of the land in dispute and in such attempt committed overt act but due to intervention of Circle Officer and Magistrate, the matter was settled. However, Dugda P.S. Case No. 37 of 2007 was instituted at the instance of the petitioner on 15.11.2007 under Sections 147, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party no. 3 and others. Again on 15.2.2008, the opposite party no. 3 along with his men armed with various weapons came to his house and destroyed several house hold articles and valuables. During their aggressive activities, the police party along with high officials arrived there and took control over the situation whereafter Dugda P.S. Case no. 6 of 2008 was lodged on 15.2.2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 427, 379/504 I.P.C. against opposite party no. 3 Baneshwar Manjhi and his associates, who also lodged one case bearing Bokaro Sector-IV P.S. Case No. 2 of 2008 on 17.2.2008 under Section 3 (iv) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioner and others. Apprehending the breach of peace between the parties, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat at his own instance initiated and drawn up the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code and directed both the parties to maintain peace and restrained them fro














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top