Allowed

Om Prakash Choubey v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC13 Jul 2018WPC/7740/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged expenditure of a magistrate and police force to maintain law and order that Deputy Commissioner issued to enable third party to execute work on disputed land, which has an ongoing civil suit pending between parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 7 October 2017 and letter dated 9 December 2017 quashed and set aside; writ petition allowed.

Om Prakash Choubey Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.7740 of 2017

¶2

¶3

Om Prakash Choubey. .......... Petitioner.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa. 3. The S.D.O., Garhwa. 4. Pravind Kumar Sahu. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A. For Respondent no.4: Mr. A. K. Mishra, Advocate ----- Order No.07 Date: 13.07.2018

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order, contained in Memo No.373 dated 7^th October, 2017 (Annexure-1) as well as letter No.478 dated 9^th December, 2017 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent no.3-Sub Divisional Officer, Garhwa, by reasons of which the Circle Officer, Meral has been deputed as magistrate to maintain peace and order so that the respondent no.4-Pravind Kumar Sahu may get the work executed over the land in question.

¶7

By way of I.A. No.2215 of 2018, the petitioner had also prayed for staying the operation of the order dated 7^th October, 2017 and the letter dated 9^th December, 2017 issued by the respondent no.3. The said interlocutory application was allowed vide order dated 12^th March, 2018, directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the said land. .

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

On perusal of the record, it appears that there is a land dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.4. The petitioner appears to have filed a suit, being Title Suit No.49 of 2006, against the respondent no.4 and others in the court of learned Munsif, Garhwa. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 3^rd April, 2017. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Civil Appeal No.7 of 2017 in the court of learned Principal District Judge, Garhwa, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 31^st July, 2017. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Second Appeal No.468 of 2017 before this Court, which is said to be still pending.

¶10

-2-

¶11

By way of impugned order/letter dated 7^th October, 2017 and 9^th December, 2017, the respondent no.3 has ordered for deputing a magistrate and police force to maintain the law and order so that the respondent no.4 may carry out his work over the land in question without any hindrance. On perusal of the said order/letter issued by the respondent no.3, it appears that the said authority after referring the history of litigation between the petitioner and the respondent no.4 and has taken steps so as to ensure the possession of the land in favour of the respondentno.4. The impugned order and letter however do not suggest that the same have been issued under any proceeding initiated by the respondent no.3 in accordance with law. Thus, the said order dated 7^th October, 2017 and letter dated 9^th December, 2017 issued by the respondent no.3 cannot be legally sustained being without jurisdiction and the same are, accordingly, quashed and set aside.

¶12

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶13

The respondent no.4 is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as provided under the law with regard to the dispute in question.

¶14

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶15

Sanjay/

Om Prakash Choubey v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Choubey v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Sunny Construction And Co. Namely Sanjay Rampal Vs Road Construction

Ms Sunny Construction And Co. Through Its Partener Namely Sanjay Rampal Vs Road Construction

Ms Sunny Construction And Co. Through Its Partener Namely Sanjay Rampal Vs Road Construction

Lakshmi Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Vijay Shankar Alias Chun Chun Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Amit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand