Dismissed¶26

Taksud Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Nov 2024W.P.(Cr.)/856/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand writ petition W.P.(Cr.) 856/2024 dismissed; section 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding dropped by SDM Bermo at Tenughat (order 03.10.2023, Case No. 304 of 2023) as land is gairmajrua; revision rejected by Sessions Judge Bokaro (21.05.2024, Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024); High Court holds no illegality, 144-order lasts 60 days, title/right/interest not decidable in 144 proceeding, dismissal non-prejudicial to parties.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed, with the clarification that the dismissal will not prejudice either party with regard to right, title and interest, which can be a subject matter before the competent court. ¶26

Taksud Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 21.05.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 (which upheld the S.D.M.'s order dated 03.10.2023 dropping the section 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding in Case No. 304 of 2023) is justified. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

There is no illegality in the orders passed by the learned courts: the S.D.M. rightly dropped the section 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding after it transpired that the land in question is gairmajrua land, having made only an observation to protect the land, and the revisional court rightly found that right, title and interest cannot be decided in a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. and rejected the revision petition.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

An order passed under section 144 Cr.P.C. remains in force only for 60 days; since the section 144 forum lacks power to decide right, title and interest, any observation made therein cannot prejudice either party, whose right, title and interest can be decided by the competent court; therefore no case of interference arises.

¶26

Key takeaways

The dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice the case of either party with regard to right, title and interest over the disputed land.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; order dated 19.11.2024) dismissed W.P.(Cr.) No. 856 of 2024 filed by two residents of village Sarjudih, District Bokaro, who had sought quashing of the Sessions Judge, Bokaro's order dated 21.05.2024 in Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 upholding the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat's order dated 03.10.2023 in Case No. 304 of 2023. The S.D.M. had dropped the proceeding initiated by the petitioners under section 144 Cr.P.C. after show cause responses showed the disputed land to be gairmajrua land, making only an observation to protect the land; the revisional court likewise found the land to be gairmajrua and held that right, title and interest cannot be decided in a section 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding. The High Court found no illegality in either order, noted that an order under section 144 Cr.P.C. lasts only 60 days and that any observation therein cannot prejudice either party since title questions belong before the competent court, and closed with the rider that the dismissal will not prejudice either party's right, title and interest.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(Cr.) No. 856 of 2024

¶3

Taksud Ansari, aged about 77 years, son of late Md. Jan Ansari

¶4

Md. Jainul Ansari, aged about 51 years, son of Taksud Ansari Both are residents of village Sarjudih, P.O. and P.S. Kasmar, DistrictBokaro, Jharkhand

¶5

….. Petitioners

¶6

Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, P.O. Tenughat, P.S. Petarwar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Circle Officer, Kasmar, P.O. Kasmar and P.S. Kasmar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶9

Md. Mtlub Ansari, son of Late Haji Hanif Mian @ Hanif Ansari.

¶10

Sattar Ansari, son of Late Haji Hanif Mian@ Hanif Ansari.

¶11

Sabila Bibi wife of Mohammad Mtlub Ansari.

¶12

Jubeda Bibi wife of Md. Sattar Ansari.

¶13

SI. Nos. 4 to 7, all are residents of Village Sarjudih, P.O. and P.S. Kasmar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand. …... Respondents

¶14

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

¶16

---

¶17

For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II

¶18

¶19

05/19.11.2024 Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

¶20

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.05.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has been pleased to reject the criminal revision upholding the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Case No. 304 of 2023.

¶21

Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated at the instance of the petitioners however, the learned S.D.M. has been pleased to reject the same on the ground that land in question happens to be gairmajrua land. He further submits that the said order was challenged before the learned Revisional Court and the learned Revisional Court by

¶22

¶23

order dated 21.05.2024 in Criminal Revision No. 06 of 2024 has been pleased to reject the same and affirmed the order of the learned S.D.M.. He further submits that proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. is with regard to breach of peace only and the learned S.D.M has given finding as such error of jurisdiction is there in view of that both the orders are wrong. He submits that the writ petition may kindly be allowed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the prayer on the ground that learned S.D.M. has found that the land in question is gairmajrua land and he has only observed to protect the said land and there is no decision with regard to right, title and possession. He submits that the learned revisional court has observed that title cannot be decided in a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

¶25

The Court has perused the order dated 03.10.2023 whereby the learned S.D.M. has been pleased to drop the proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. It is an admitted position that said proceeding was initiated at the instance of the petitioners and show cause was issued and after receiving show cause it transpired before the learned court that the land in question is gairmajrua land and in view of that proceeding was dropped. Only observation was made to protect the said land and the learned revisional court has also found that the land in question is gairmajrua land and has observed in para 8 of the order that right, title and interest cannot be decided in a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C and in view of that he has been pleased to reject the revision petition. There is no illegality in order passed by the learned Courts.

¶26

It is further well settled that order passed under section 144 Cr.P.C. remains only for 60 days. If the Court is not having power to decide the right, title and interest, any observation will also not prejudice the case of either parties with regard to right, title and interest that can be a subject matter before the competent court who can decide the same. As such no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶27

However, this order will not prejudice the case of either parties with regard to right, title and interest.

¶28

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶29

Satyarthi

¶30

Taksud Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taksud Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reshma Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chitranjan Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Kumar Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Bhalotia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Wasim Ahmed Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Srivastav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police