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

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
Bhuwneshwar Sah - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 5446 & 5511 of 2018
Decided On : 20-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, A.C. to A.G.
For the Private Respondent:Mr. Radhey Shyam Pandey, Advocate

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 -Articles 19(1)(g) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147/149/448/341/323/380/506 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 107 - Power of attorney - Superintendent of Police - Petitioners hotel in peaceful manner without hindrance from any corner and to take appropriate measures on complaints representations made by petitioner to remove unlawful assembly local goons and anti social elements who are continuously threatening petitioner and not allowing him to carry on business as well as trying to dispossess him from said place where he has been carrying his business for more than years – Held, Petitioners further put reliance on judgment Humble Supreme Court rendered in case Others - Union of India & Others Civil Appeal - Humble Supreme Court has held in said case that though right of property is not fundamental right protected Part of Constitution of India it remains valuable constitutional right and landowner’s right to property cannot remain suspended indefinitely at wishes State or its agencies - It has further been held that it is no longer open to State in any of its forms executive state agencies or legislature to claim that law or constitution can be ignored or complied at its convenience - This Court has no doubt with proposition laid down in aforesaid case - However in present case right to property is still to be adjudicated by competent civil court since both petitioners and private respondent are claiming their respective right title and interest over same on strength of different sale deeds and as such ratio laid down by Humble Apex Court in aforesaid case will not be applicable here - Since no property can be kept sealed for an indefinite period Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to expedite proceeding initiated section to take all possible steps to dispose same on basis of available material within two months from date of receipt production copy of this order – Petitions disposed

JUDGMENT :

The present cases are taken up through video conferencing.

2. W.P.(C) No. 5446 of 2018 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 4- the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara and respondent no. 5- the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara to take appropriate measures and actions forthwith to open the seal/lock of the petitioner’s shop namely ‘Kailash Hotel’ (food vending establishment) situated at sub-plot no. 41/32, Ward no. 4, Mihijam, Jamtara. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to provide appropriate police force to maintain law and order to ensure opening of the petitioner’s hotel in a peaceful manner without hindrance from any corner and to take appropriate measures on the complaints/representations made by the petitioner to remove the unlawful assembly of local goons and anti-social elements who are continuously threatening the petitioner and not allowing him to carry on business as well as trying to dispossess him from the said place where he has been carrying his business for more than 40 years.

3. W.P. (C) No. 5511 of 2018 has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to show cause as to how and under what authority the commercial premises of the petitioners has been sealed by the private respondent no.5 and also to get the same unsealed immediately.

4. The claim of the petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 5446 of 2018 is that he has been running a small food vending shop/hotel/canteen for more than 40 years situated at sub-plots of plot no. 41 and 41/3019 of khata no. 127. The said portions of land have been marked as sub-plot nos. 41/40, 41/D and 41/3019/40 measuring an area of 1.375 decimals at Mauza - Mihijam, Ward no.4, Mihijam, District Jamtara. The petitioner purchased the said land from one Smt. Ruma Pal through her power of attorney holder namely Sri Nandu Mahto by virtue of registered sale deed dated 27.07.2018.

5. In W.P.(C) No. 5511 of 2018, the petitioner no.1 claims that he purchased a shop standing over a portion of the land appertaining to sub-plot nos. 41/38, 41/B, 41/39/A and 41/3019/39/A measuring an area of 1.517 decimals from Smt. Ruma Paul through her power of attorney holder-Sri Nandu Mahto by virtue of registered sale deed dated 27.07.2018 on payment of consideration of Rs.9.90 lacs. Similarly, the petitioner no.2 purchased a shop standing over a portion of the land appertaining to sub-plot nos. 41/34, 41/A, measuring an area of 0.862 decimal from Smt. Ruma Paul through her power of attorney holder- Sri Nandu Mahto by virtue of registered sale deed dated 28.07.2018 on payment of consideration of Rs.6.00 lacs. The petitioner no.3 also purchased a shop standing over a portion of the land appertaining to sub-plot nos. 41/39/B, 41/C and 41/3019/39/B measuring an area of 0.758 decimal from Smt Ruma Pal through her power of attorney holder- Sri Nandu Mahto by virtue of registered sale deed dated 28.07.2018 on payment of consideration of Rs.5.00 lacs.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bhuneshwar Prasad Saw [in W.P.(C) No. 5446 of 2018] submits that in the morning of 10.10.2018, the private respondent no. 8 in association of few local goons and antisocial elements attacked on the petitioners’ hotel, assaulted the petitioner and his staff and also snatched Rs.9,500/- from the billing counter of the hotel. Thereafter, they forcefully sealed the entire premises of the petitioner’s hotel. The petitioner reported the said incident to Mihijam Police Station leading to lodging of FIR being Mihijam P.S Case No. 118 of 2018 under Sections 147/149/448/341/323/380/506 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that even after lodging of the FIR, the police did not take any step to open/unlock the seal of the petitioner’s hotel. The petitioner made representations to the senior police officers, other administrative authorities including the respondent nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 and even before the Chief Minister’s Public Grievanc

      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