Disposed

Harihar Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC5 Aug 2013CR. WJC/116/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ application regarding a land dispute under Section 145 CrPC was disposed of without adjudication on merits. The Court allowed the Interlocutory Application to substitute deceased parties and directed the lower court to expedite the proceedings due to a lapse of 17 years.

What did the court decide?

Allowed Interlocutory Application No. 2104 of 2008 substituting heirs of deceased petitioners and original respondents; directed lower courts to expedite disposal.

Harihar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Bihar and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Writ No.116 of 1998

¶3

=========================================================== 1. Harihar Singh, son of Firangi Singh, resident of Village- Piparadih Mutalka Lahathan, P.S.- Agiaon Bazar, District- Bhojpur. 2. (i) Dharmendra Singh. (ii) Sanjay Singh.

¶4

Both sons of Late Parsuram Singh.

¶5

(iii) Devanti Kuer, wife of Late Parsuram Singh

¶6

All resident of Village- Pipradih, Mutalka Lahathan, P.S.- Agion Bazar, District- Bhojpur.

¶7

.... .... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The State of Bihar.

¶10

The 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah. (Deleted vide order dated 18.03.1998)

¶11

The Subdivisional Magistrate, Piro, District- Bhojpur. (Deleted vide order dated 18.03.1998)

¶12

Banwari Singh.

¶13

Raghwendra Kumar Singh.

¶14

Mahendra Singh.

¶15

All sons of Late Daroga Singh, residents of Village- Piparadih Mutalka Lahathan, P.S.- Agiaon Bazar, District- Bhojpur.

¶16

Kaushal Kumar Singh, son of Late Bishnu Singh, resident of Village- Pipradih, Mutalka Lahathan, P.S.- Agion Bazar, District- Bhojpur.

¶17

Satyendra Narayan Singh, son of Late Bachchu Singh, resident of VillagePipradih Mutalka Lahathan, P.S.- Agion Bazar, District- Bhojpur.

¶18

(i) Pramod Singh. (ii) Anil Singh. (iii) Chote Lal Singh.

¶19

All are sons of Late Lakshuman Singh, residents of Village- Pipradih, Mutalka Lahathan, P.S.- Agion Bazar, District- Bhojpur.

¶20

1. Laloo Singh, son of Late Ram Chhabila Rai, resident of Village- Piparadih Mutalkha Lahathan, P.S.- Agiaon Bazar, District- Bhojpur.

¶21

===========================================================

¶22

.... .... Respondents

¶23

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.116 of 1998 dt.05-08-2013 2/5

¶24

Appearance :

¶25

For the Petitioners : Mr. Nagendra Dubey, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶26

For the Respondents : None

¶27

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

Date: 05-08-2013

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. None turned up on behalf of the respondents including the State and the names of original respondent nos. 2 & 3 have already been deleted earlier vide order dated 18.03.1998.

¶30

2. This is an application preferred mainly against Annexure-1 i.e. order dated 06^th July, 1996 passed in Case No. 22 of 1996, wherein, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Piro, DistrictBhojpur initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the application filed by the respondent no.4 with respect to Plot Nos. 6074, 2508, 5767, 2043 and 5666, the lands purchased by the ancestors of the parties, who are heirs of one Dipan Roy, and the court below on perusing the application finding the dispute relating to possession over the lands causing apprehension of breach etc. initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued notices upon both the sides.

¶31

3. As submitted, Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1996 was preferred against initiation of such proceeding before

¶32

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.116 of 1998 dt.05-08-2013 3/5

¶33

Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah, wherein, on 19^th January, 1998 the learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah adjourned the case and fixed the same on 19^th March, 1998 enabling the parties to produce the copies of orders passed by this Court in connected pending writ applications preferred against the order of Joint Director, Consolidation, but instead of doing so, the instant writ application, during pendency of criminal revision, preferred which appears completely pre-matured.

¶34

4. The Revisional Court has not passed any final order and committed no wring while keeping the matter pending enabling the parties to place other connected relevant materials including the orders of this Court.

¶35

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is not in a position to state as to whether Criminal Revision No. 150 of 1996 is still pending in the light of order dated 18.03.1998 stating the operation of the orders as contained in Annexures-1 & 2 or in the absence of any communication etc., it is disposed of.

¶36

6. In the event of such revision pending, the petitioner may produce the required documents and seek proper order. But, in case, no such revision is pending, the petitioners are at liberty, if so wishes, to place all the relevant materials before

¶37

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.116 of 1998 dt.05-08-2013 4/5

¶38

the court below i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Piro, DistrictBhojpur in the proceeding and seek appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶39

7. Under the facts and circumstances stated above, Interlocutory Application No. 2104 of 2008 filed with Vakalatnama of heirs and legal representative of petitioner no. 2, Parsuram Singh, who said to have been died on 12.01.2004. Further indicating the death of original respondent nos. 7, 8 & 9, respectively, Bishnu Singh on 01.12.2001, Bachchu Singh on 12.01.2004 and Lakshuman Singh on 11.11.2005 leaving behind their respective heirs and legal representatives proposed to be substituted in their places. Hence, the Interlocutory Application No. 2104 of 2008 is allowed. Further there appears no need to notice upon the substituted heirs of the original respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9 in this application in view of the fact that without any adjudication on merit this writ application is being disposed of with observation stated above.

¶40

8. Further, taking into consideration the lapse of 17 odds years without any substantial progress, the court below (as the case may be) is expected to proceed expeditiously and dispose of the petitions, if any, filed by the petitioners in accordance with law at the earliest. With the above observation, this writ

¶41

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.116 of 1998 dt.05-08-2013 5/5

¶42

application stands disposed of.

¶43

9. As prayed for, let this order be communicated to the courts below i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Piro, DistrictBhojpur and 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah through FAX at the cost of the petitioners.

¶44

(Akhilesh Chandra, J)

¶45

Praveen-II/-

Harihar Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harihar Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar 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

Biso Choudhary and Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Priyanka Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Home Department, Government Of Bihar and Ors.

Hiralal Mahto Vs the Union of India

Mukesh Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Bablu Singh Vs State of Bihar

Pushpa Priyadarshani Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.