Civil rights disputes must be adjudicated in civil courts, and the High Court cannot grant police protection without establishing possession through proper legal channels.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.9 to 20.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for direction upon the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 to take appropriate steps against the respondent Nos.9 to 20 restraining them from interfering with the lands appertaining to Plot No. 754A having an area of 0.08 Acres and Plot No.756 having an area of 0.42 acres under Khata No.1 and Plot No.865/1367 having an area of 1.92 decimals under Khata No.184, Mouza – Kajaru Kalan within Pandu Police Station measuring total area of 2.42 acres, the land in question and to ensure safe enjoyment of the right of the petitioners as declared by competent court of law and to provide police protection to the petitioners for unfettered enjoyment over the said property in any manner and within a specified period. Further prayer is made for direction upon the respondents to demolish part of the illegal construction raised on a portion of the lands in question by the private respondents in violation of the decree of permanent injunction against the private respondents or their ancestors by the competent court of law.

3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Binod Kumar Pandey and Anil Kumar Pandey both son of late Radhikesh Pandey, were in possession of the lands in question on the basis of inheritance from their ancestors who got the same in Partition Suit No.8 of 1928. After vesting of Jamindari Interest, they got rent assessed for the said land on the basis of their peaceful possession and return in ‘K-Form’ was submitted. The ancestors of Binod Kumar Pandey and Anil Kumar Pandey had already settled in village – Churmari in the district of Satna in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He further submits that Binod Kumar Pandey and Anil Kumar Pandey executed a registered Deed of Gift dated 03.01.1994 in favour of Narendra Kumar Pandey, Satyendra Narayan Pandey, Jitendra Kumar Pandey all sons of Sidhi Nath Pandey and Anand Kumar Pandey, son of Dharm Dev Pandey and they are in possession of 2.42 acres of land appertaining of plots as disclosed in the prayer portion of the writ petition. He then submits that the name of the above donees were mutated by an order dated 02.06.1994 passed by the Circle Officer, Bishrampur in Mutation Case No.78 of 1994-95 and they were paying the rent to the State of Bihar and now to the State of Jharkhand. He submits that in recent survey records of right has been prepared in the name of the petitioners. According to him, the Civil Suit for declaring their indefeasible right and title over the said lands acquired by them on the basis of a registered deed of gift against Manangu Ram and Others which was registered as Title Suit No.122 of 1996 and by judgment dated 31.05.1997, the Munsif, Palamau at Medni Nagar, decreed the aforesaid Title Suit No.122 of 1996 declaring the right, title and interest of the petitioners over the said land and also confirmed possession of the petitioners. He submits that in the said suit, the permanent injunction was passed against the private respondents. He submits a decree was sealed and signed on 07.06.1997. He submits against the said judgment, the respondents have preferred Original Misc. Case No.15 of 1997 invoking provisions of order-IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed on 21.02.1998. He further submits that again a Misc. Petition under order-IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 20.12.2001 by the original defendant vide Misc. Case No.12 of 2001 which was also dismissed on 22.03.2003. In this background, he submits the dismissal of two petitions clearly suggests that permanent injunction has attained finality and in spite of that the private respondents are interfering with the right, title interest of the petitioners and for that the petitioners have already moved before the c