Disposed

Shayam Prasad @ Shayama Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Sept 2024CWJC/13029/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition involving a dispute over land encroachment and obstruction during construction. The Court noted the pendency of a civil title suit and denied further intervention, leaving the petitioner to seek restraining orders via the suit remedy and directing the petitioner to approach the Sessions Judge for revision against the CrPC notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file an application to restrain the respondent for construction in the pending suit.

Shayam Prasad @ Shayama Prasad Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13029 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Shayam Prasad @ Shayama Prasad S/o Maheshwar Prasad R/o Vill.Hathisar, P.S.- Purnahiya, Dist.- Shivhar (Bihar).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

District Magistrate, Sheohar, Bihar.

¶9

Sub Divisional Officer, Sheohar, Bihar.

¶10

Circle Officer, Purnahiya, Sheohar.

¶11

SHO, Police Station, Purnahia.

¶12

Raj Narayan Prasad, S/o Late Ramvilas Mahto R/o- Hathisar, P.S.Purnahiya, Dist.- Sheohar (Bihar).

¶13

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Atul Dayal, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate ======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 02-09-2024

¶17

Heard Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Krishna, learned Advocate for the State.

¶18

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Divisonal Officer, Sheohar dated 24.04.2024 directing the SHO of Purnahiya to take legal action against the individuals disrupting the construction of the residents of respondent no. 7. The petitioner also sought quashing of the notice issued under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.13029 of 2024(2) dt.02-09-2024 2/3

¶20

Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that on account of the fact that some portion of the land has been encroached by the private respondent, he approached before the Circle Officer, Purnahiya requesting for the measurement of his land which gave rise to measurement case No. 38 of 2023-24. Measurement was done, however, on being dissatisfied with the measurement report, the petitioner preferred an appeal no. 01 of 2024-25 before the DCLR, Sheohar, which is pending till date.

¶21

In the mean time, the petitioner had also filed a Title Suit No. 4 of 2024 before the Court of learned Munsif Sadar, Sheohar which is admitted on 06.05.2024. Despite the aforesaid fact that the appeal and the title suit is pending, the SDO, Sheohar by the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 directed the SHO, Purnahiya that in case any obstruction is being made during the construction of the house, appropriate action is directed to be taken against the person who shall be responsible for creating obstruction. It is also made clear that in case any of the aggrieved party files a title suit and the same is already admitted, in such circumstances status quo shall be maintained.

¶22

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submits that so far the notice issued under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the petitioner has

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.13029 of 2024(2) dt.02-09-2024 3/3

¶24

remedy before the Sessions Judge by filing a criminal revision. Moreover, there is already a title suit pending between the parties and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the construction of the house at the hands of private respondent no. 7, he has remedy to file a petition for injunction in the suit itself.

¶25

Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and taking note of the factum of pendency of Title Suit No. 04 of 2024 before the learned Munsif Sadar, Sheohar, the writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application, for restraining the private respondent for construction of the house.

¶26

So far the grievance of the petitioner with regard to notice under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, it has rightly been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the State that remedy is available before the learned Sessions Judge in criminal revision.

¶27

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶29

supratim/-

¶30

Shayam Prasad @ Shayama Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shayam Prasad @ Shayama Prasad v. The State of Bihar

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

Rishu kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjeet Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Mala Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Munna Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Ayodhya Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ratan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar