Dismissed

Jeetlal Jaiswal v. Husaina Begum

Chhattisgarh HC14 Jun 2022WPCR/456/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached High Court for directions regarding an application under Section 456 Cr.P.C. to restore possession of immovable property after forcible dispossession. Court directed the jurisdictional Magistrate to decide the application within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the jurisdictional Magistrate to decide the application under Section 456 Cr.P.C. within 30 days.

Jeetlal Jaiswal Vs Husaina Begum — Chhattisgarh HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

W.P.(CR) No. 456 of 2022

¶4

Jeetlal Jaiswal S/o Late Chiraunujilal Jaiswal Aged About 40 Years Behind Suvidha Lodge, Old Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tehsil And DistrictBilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Husaina Begum W/o Abdul Gaffur Aged About 51 Years R/o Juniline, Jawahar Badha, Police Station Kotwali, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City-Kotwali, DistrictBilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State : Mrs. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order On Board

14.06.2022

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only the limited prayer in this petition is to decide the application moved under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. to restore the possession. He would submit that the mother of the respondent who lost the tenancy case uptill the Supreme Court wherein the Supreme Court in the year 2008 directed to hand over the premises within a period of 30.06.2008 and pursuant thereto the premises was handed over to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent's daughter and the original / initial tenant Sakina Bee forcefully entered into the house for which the FIR was registered and eventually she was convicted by order dated 31.10.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. to restore the possession of the petitioner,

¶15

¶16

as he was again forcefully dispossessed. He would submit that the Court is empowered to pass an order under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. to restore the possession of immovable property. Therefore, the trial Court may be directed to decide the application under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. within a period of 30 days.

¶17

Perused the documents filed along with the petition. The document shows that the petitioner came into possession of the subject premises immovable property and thereafter again the respondent entered into the possession. Since the delivery of possession is preceded by the judicial pronouncement of this Court and pursuant thereto the petitioner was put into possession and if he has been forcefully dispossessed then in such case it will always within the domain to invoke the power under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. The facts would show that the petitioner has already moved an application under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. to restore the possession of the property on the ground that he was removed by a criminal force. Under the circumstances, the J.M.F.C. Bilaspur is directed to decide the application of the petitioner moved under Section 456 of Cr.P.C. within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

With such observation, the petition stands disposed off.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Goutam Bhaduri Judge

¶21

ashok

Jeetlal Jaiswal v. Husaina Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetlal Jaiswal v. Husaina Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Somkunwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gurmukh Dayalani Vs Shrinivas Garg

Ashish Jaiswal Vs Ravi Shankar Tiwari

Subhash Chandra Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roshan Kumar Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh