Durga Prasad Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Durga Prasad Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to pursue the pending injunction petition (under Order-39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC) in the learned court where the civil suit is pending, with the injunction petition to be decided expeditiously.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities should be directed to protect the petitioner's property, which the private respondents (in connivance with respondent no.5) are alleged to be occupying forcefully and constructing upon illegally, while the petitioner's injunction application in the pending civil suit remains undecided.

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the pending injunction petition before the concerned learned court where the matter is pending.

Ratio / Principle

It is open to the petitioner to press the exigency to be decided in the injunction petition, and the learned court is to decide that petition expeditiously.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No. 3844 of 2024, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi (decided 27.08.2024; Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.). Petitioner Durga Prasad Sharma sought a direction to the respondent authorities to protect his property, alleging that private respondents Adil Rashid, Tariq Rashid and Shanwar Rahman, in connivance with respondent no.5 (Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee), were forcefully taking possession and changing the topography of the land by making illegal construction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Original Suit No.58 of 2024 had already been instituted; that an earlier section 144 Cr.PC proceeding had lost its force after 60 days, following which the private respondents started construction; and that a petition under Order-39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC remained pending disposal in the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent State and respondent no.5 jointly submitted that the remedy lay in pursuing the pending injunction petition. Disposing of the petition, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the injunction petition before the concerned learned court, left it open to the petitioner to make out the exigency therein, and directed that it be decided expeditiously.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 3844 of 2024

----

Durga Prasad Sharma, son of Sri Chauthmal Sharma, aged about 64 years, resident of H.Ho.70/71, Dhatkidih Market, PO and PS Bistupur, Dist. East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1) THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EAST SINGHBHUM, PO PS SAKCHI DIST EAST SINGHBHUM JAMSHEDPUR

3) SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE EAST SINGHBHUM, PO PS SAKCHI DIST EAST SINGHBHUM JAMSHEDPUR

4) S D O, P.O P.S SAKCHI DIST EAST SINGHBHUM JAMSHEDPUR

5) SPECIAL OFFICER JAMSEDPUR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE JAMSHEDPUR, PO PS SAKCHI DIST EAST SINGHBHUM JAMSHEDPUR

6) ADIL RASHID, R/O H NO 77 ROAD NO 3 LINE NO 5 B BLOCK DHATKIDIH PO PS BISTUPUR DIST EAST SINGHBHUM JAMSHEDPUR

7) TARIQ RASHID, R/O H NO 77 ROAD NO 3 LINE NO 5 B BLOCK DHATKIDIH PO PS BISTUPUR DIST EAST SINGHBHUM JAMSHEDPUR

8) SHANWAR RAHMAN, R/O H. NO 77 ROAD NO. 3 LINE NO. 5 B BLOCK DHATKIDIH PO PS BISTUPUR DIST EAST SINGHBHUM JAMSHEDPUR

.... Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioner :- Mr. D.K. Prasad,Advocate For the State :- Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, Advocate For the Respondent No.5 :- Mr. Vijay Kumar Roy, Advocate ----

2 /27.08.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for

the respondent State as well as respondent no.5.

In this petition the prayer of the petitioner is made for direction upon the respondent authorities to protect the property of the petitioner as private respondents in connivance with respondent no.5

1 W.P.(C) No. 3844 of 2024

forcefully taking possession and changing the topography of the land by making illegal construction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already instituted a suit being Original Suit No.58 of 2024. He submits that earlier section 144 Cr.PC proceeding was initiated and the private respondents were started making construction on it after 60 days of the same when such order lost its force. He submits that the petitioner has also preferred a petition under Order-39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC which is pending for its disposal but till date the same has not been decided by the learned court where the said civil suit is pending.

Learned counsel for the respondent State and learned counsel for the respondent no.5 jointly submit that remedy is there of the petitioner to pursue the said injunction petition before the learned court where the same is pending.

In view of above, this petition is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the injunction petition before the concerned learned court where such matter is pending.

It is open to the petitioner to make out the exigency to be decided in the said petition for injunction which will be decided by the learned court expeditiously.

This petition is accordingly disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

SI/,

2 W.P.(C) No. 3844 of 2024