Disposed

Damodar Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Sept 2024CWJC/13692/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Circle Officer's order of status quo on land disputed in a pending civil suit. The court held that since the matter is sub judice, the administrative officer lacks authority to restrain possession and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed off on the ground that the Circle Officer had no authority to pass an order of restraint while the matter was sub judice in a Civil Court.

Damodar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13692 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Damodar Pandey S/o Late Ram Narayan Pandey, R/o village Pisay, P.S. Obra, District - Aurangabad. At Present R/o Srikrishna Nagar, Ahari, P.S. and District - Aurangabad.

¶4

Vashishth Pandey S/o Late Ram Narayan Pandey, R/o village Pisay, P.S. Obra, District - Aurangabad. At Present R/o Srikrishna Nagar, Ahari, P.S. and District - Aurangabad.

¶5

Sunil Sharma, S/o Late Nathuni Sharma alias Nathuni Singh, R/o village Ubb, P.S. Obra, District Aurangabad.

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

The Chief Secretary, Vikas Bhawan, Bihar, Patna.

¶10

Collector cum District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

¶11

Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.

¶12

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad.

¶13

Circle Officer, Aurangabad.

¶14

Officer-In-Charge, Mufassil Police Station, Aurangabad.

¶15

Dhananjay Kumar Yadav alias Dharmendra Yadav, S/o Late Faguni Yadav, R/o village Kushi, P.S. Muffasil, District Aurangabad.

¶16

... ... Respondent/s

¶17

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

¶18

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to GA-10

¶19

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-09-2024

¶20

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the

¶21

learned Advocate for the State.

¶22

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated

¶23

20.07.2024, passed by the respondent Circle Officer, Aurangabad, whereby and whereunder the Circle Officer,

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.13692 of 2024 dt.17-09-2024 2/4

¶25

Aurangabad has been pleased to pass an order of status quo in relation to the land, which is the subject matter of the Title Suit No. 33 of 2024, filed by the private respondent and others.

¶26

Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the land, in question, was purchased by the petitioners from one Keshar Yadav and Bisheshar Yadav way back in the year 2009 and since then, they have been coming in peaceful possession. Having purchased the land, the petitioners applied for mutation, which was allowed in their favour and the petitioners have been paying the revenue rent regularly with effect from the date of mutation. It is further contended that while the petitioners have been coming in possession of the land, in the meantime, the private respondent no. 11 started creating hindrances and filed several representation before the State officials in order to create problem in the peaceful enjoyment of the petitioners. Learned Advocate for the petitioners also contended that Title Suit No. 33 of 2024 has also been instituted by the private respondent and others for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by the ancestors of the private respondent in favour of the petitioners.

¶27

Irrespective of the aforenoted facts as also the Title Suit is pending before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction,

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.13692 of 2024 dt.17-09-2024 3/4

¶29

when the private respondent has filed an application before the Circle Officer, the Circle Officer had passed the impugned order granting status quo.

¶30

Learned Advocate for the State, at this juncture, would submit that since the petitioner have been coming in peaceful possession over the land, in question, any status quo will certainly protect the interest of the petitioners.

¶31

Learned Advocate for the petitioners countering the submission thus, further contended that in the garb of status quo order, the Circle Officer, Aurangabad is not allowing the petitioners to cultivate the land, in question and making construction over it.

¶32

This Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners in absence of any specific order of prohibition to cultivate or otherwise. Once the matter is pending before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, with respect to the land, in question, the Circle Officer has no authority to pass any order of restrainment against any person, who is having, prima facie , right, title, interest, in his favour and is in possession of the land. It is the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction who shall look into the matter and pass appropriate order, if any dispute has been raised and sub judice therein.

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.13692 of 2024 dt.17-09-2024 4/4

¶34

In view of the aforesaid observation, the present

¶35

writ petition stands disposed off.

¶36

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶37

shivank/-

¶38

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	18.09.2024
Transmission Date	NA

Damodar Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damodar Pandey 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

Mantosh Sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Pahari Singh @ Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Raushan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Hare Ram Roy Vs The State of Bihar

Siyaram Choudhary @ Sitaram Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Gulab Khan Vs The State of Bihar