Disposed

Md Azad And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC6 Dec 2022Cr.M.P./1129/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenging an order reversing an Executive Magistrate's possession declaration was disposed of. The court held that disputed facts of ownership or possession under Section 145 Cr.P.C. must be decided by a civil court. Liberty was granted to approach the civil court without prejudice to the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of, liberty granted to file civil case. Interim order dated 15.12.2016 vacated.

Md Azad And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1129 of 2016

¶3

Md. Azad, s/o Late Md. Rafiq

¶4

Md. Nausad Ali @ Md. Nausad, S/o Late Idrish Mian

¶5

Sakina Khatoon @ Sakina Bibi, D/o late Md. Rabia All resident of village Bawanbigha Machwatanr, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District- Deoghar … Petitioners -Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Nayeem Mian

¶8

Masoom Mian

¶9

Maloom Mian

¶10

Gulam Mian

¶11

Waris Mian

¶12

Mobim Mian

¶13

Amin Mian

¶14

Sadar Mian

¶15

Nadeem Mian All sons of Mohammad Mian, resident of Mohalla Machwatarn, P.O. Madhupur, P.S. Madhupur, Dist.- Deoghar … Opposite Parties

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶17

For the Petitioners : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. For O.P. Nos.2 to 10 : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate

¶18

05/06.12.2022. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Deoghar in Cr. Revision No.116/2013 by which the the criminal revision was allowed and the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, Madhupur, Deoghar in Cr. Misc. Case No.96/03, T.R. No.62/11 has been reversed and possession has been declared in favour of opposite party nos.2 to 10.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the possession was declared in favour of the petitioners, however the revisional court on assumption has reversed the order and restrained the petitioners to go on the land.

¶20

It is well settled that under Section 145 Cr.P.C. only possession is

¶21

-2-

¶22

required to be find out and if there is any disputed question of fact with regard to ownership/possession, that can be decided by competent civil court.

¶23

In that view of the matter, this petition is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioners, if so advised, to approach competent court of civil jurisdiction. If any case is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be decided in accordance with law and without being prejudiced to the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Madhupur, Deoghar as well as the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Deoghar (revisional court) and the same shall be decided on its own merit. It is open to the petitioners to make out their case before the learned court by way of placing documents with regard to interim injunction.

¶24

With the above observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

¶25

Interim order dated 15.12.2016 stands vacated.

¶26

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶27

Ajay/

Md Azad And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md Azad And Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nimai Gope And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Bijay Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Keshari Kishore Sharan Sinha Vs the Union of India through the C B I

Manish Kumar Sharma Alias Manish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shrawan Ram Alias Sharwan Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madan Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand