Petitioner sought writ for protection and restoration of possession in disputed property. Court found serious dispute and pending suit. Exercise of writ jurisdiction deemed not appropriate.
Writ application dismissed due to existence of serious dispute and pending title suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.710 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- West Champaran
======================================================
KUSHAL KUMAR son of Vinay Kumar Yadav Resident of Parbatiya Tola Po- Belabag Ward no-1 Bettiah West Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. M. Nasrul Huda Khan ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.710 of 2023(3) dt.07-12-2023 2/4
3 07-12-2023
Heard learned for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the State.
2 . Petitioner in the present writ application is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to take immediate steps to protect the life and property of the petitioner and his family members. He further prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to remove the lock of police officials from the premises of the petitioner and restore his possession over the property.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his family members were living in the property in question since 07.09.1995. Father of the petitioner had filed a title suit bearing T.S. Case No. 38 of 1999 in respect of the said property in the learned court below. It is his case that the property in question belong to one Madhu Kohli. It measures about ten bighas of land on which there are orchard and house. Father of the petitioner claimed that during his lifetime, the husband of Madhu Kohli, namely, Krishna Kohli was looking after the property but after his death, Madhu Kohli came from Delhi to the State of Bihar and handed over power of attorney in favor of plaintiff for looking after the property and since then the plaintiff is looking after the same. In the plaint, a further case has been set up that in respect of the property, parchas have been issued which are illegal and on the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.710 of 2023(3) dt.07-12-2023 3/4
strength of those parchas , the defendants want to usurp the land.
4 . Learned counsel submits that the learned Sub-JudgeIV, Bettiah had passed an order of status-quo in the said suit. During the pendency of the suit and operation of the order of status-quo, the defendants made attempts to take forceful possession of the property which is subject matter of the suit.
5 . By filing this writ application, the petitioner claims that the respondent nos. 6 to 16 are the land grabbers and they together with the local administration, including the police officials, came over the suit land in two jeeps and asked the petitioner to open the door of the house. It is alleged that they entered and starting evicting the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner and the family members were forced to leave the house whereafter the police personnel have put their own locks and the keys have been kept in the police station.
6 . In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. From the statements made in the counter affidavit it appears that according to the respondents, the father of the petitioner Bhikhari Yadav @ Vinay Kumar Yadav tried many times to enter into the building on the basis of some sham and forged documents. It is stated that the Police always stopped the petitioner and his father from taking undue possession over the building and they tried to maintain law and order over which the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.710 of 2023(3) dt.07-12-2023 4/4
petitioner and his father threatened the police personnel to implicate them in a false case. It is stated that Anchal Parcha under Ceiling Act bearing Record No. 05/90-92 of Khata No. 91, Khesara No 669 area measuring 70 decimal has been issued in the name of Nakchhed Ram in connection with the house and land for which the petitioner has mentioned as his own house in the petition. This house is in ruined condition having no door and window. It is further stated that Bhikhari Yadav @ Vinay Kumar Yadav, who is father of the petitioner, has got at least twelve criminal antecedents and in all the cases he has been chargesheeted, whereas this petitioner has also got a criminal antecedent.
7 . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the nature of the pleadings available on the record seriously disputing the contentions of the petitioner and there being a title suit already pending in respect of the property, this Court would not entertain this writ application as it is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8 . This writ application is dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Rishi/- U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct respondent authorities to protect petitioner's life/property and remove police locks during a pending tit
Whether the existence of a serious dispute and a pending title suit constitutes a fit case for intervention in civil property disputes.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kushal Kumar
The State of Bihar
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
