ARUN KUMAR v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors

disposed of by this common order. In C.W.J.C. No. 357 of 2009, petitioner has prayed for a direction to the State Respondents to provide security to his life and property whereas in C.W.J.C.No.387 of 2009, besides seeking for security to life and property, petitioner has also prayed for protection while removing impediments and obstruction put by the accused persons in S.K. Puri P.S.Case No. 74 of 2009 dated 28th February 2009 under Sections 448, 379, 427 and 504 of the IPC in which the petitioner is informant and 2 Respondent No.12 Amar Jyoti Sharma, Advocate along with four other Advocates and their family members and 13 others are accused. The F.I.R. contains the allegation that in the house in question in which the petitioner resides, with his tenants, the accused persons committed trespass and broke the fountain in the garden and took away articles from a room. The articles were not specified. The informant also alleged that the accused persons wrote on the building that the building belonged to Sushma Sharma, Advocate who is absconder. On these allegations, the petitioner prayed for taking legal action against the accused persons, as named in the FIR. The writ petitions were filed during the investigation of the case. The petitioner/informant, feeling apprehension that the accused persons, which included some Advocates and other family members were again committing trespass, hence he has prayed this Court for a direction to the police to provide security to his life and property. The Police completed the investigation and on completion of investigation has not submitted any charge-sheet against the accused persons but a final report (Vide Annexure-B to the status report) has been submitted with this report that the matter involved land dispute. The status report, as directed to be submitted vide this Court’s order dated 22nd May 2009 has been submitted to- day under an affidavit sworn in by the City Superintendent of 3 Police, Patna. In the status report, it is stated that the Police officials went to the spot and took statements of some witnesses including some tenants of petitioner Arun Kumar Grover and, thus, it is stated in the status report that the disputed house is in possession of the tenants of the petitioner. The status report also says that there is land dispute between the parties i.e. the informant and the accused with respect to the building in question. The petitioner submitted that he purchased the building from one of the accused Gandeo Sharma as Secretary of Alakhnanda Housing Co-operative Society under sale-deed dated 6th April 1985 in his and his wife’s name. It was further submitted that one of the accused, namely Sushma Sharma, Advocate purchased the said building from another accused Amarjyoti Sharma, Advocate (Respondent No.12) as Secretary of the same Co-operative Society, vide sale-deed dated 20th June 2000 (Annexure-4 to the status report) and thereafter land dispute started. Any title suit is not reported to be pending with regard to the land in question. It was submitted by the respondents that Sushma Sharma, Advocate has purchased the land after paying full consideration money and she has got her title and possession over the land in question and she is also paying municipal taxes and the revenue receipts are Annexure- 4 I/3 and I/4 to the I.A. No.1245 of 2009. Respondents referred to the sale-deed on the basis of which the petitioner claims to have purchased the property from the Secretary of the said Alakhnanda Co-operative Society. From the sale-deed it was pointed out that the consideration money of Rs.2,00,000/- is said to have been paid by the vendor himself and the vendee does not pay anything. Thus, it was argued that the sale-deed was a document without any consideration paid by the vendee who claims to have derived title on the basis of the sale-deed. It was also pointed out that under the sale-deed, vendee Arun Kumar Grover, the petitioner was the President of the said Alakhnanda Co-operative Society, whereas the sole vendor Gandeo Sharma, was Secretary of the Society and under the Co-operative laws, such type of transactions are not permitted inasmuch as President of any Co-operative Society himself alone cannot sell out any co-operative land in favour of the President. The respondents referred to Annexure-I/6 to the I.A.No. 1245 of 2009 which is order of Deputy Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation in Misc. Appeal No. 401 of 1997-98 wherein order of removal of Sushma Sharma’s name and inclusion of petitioner’s name in the Municipal Revenue records with respect to the disputed holding No. 603/306/116 was ordered to be stayed till the dispute of title is decided by a competent court. On the basis of the facts as stated above, it is clear that there is land dispute between the parties involving intricate 5 question of title and possession between the parties. The petitioner has prayed for Police protection to his life and property against the accused persons under the said FIR No. 74 of 2009, dated 28th March 2009 wherein the simple allegation is that the accused persons who included as many as five Advocates and their family members, trespassed upon the petitioner’s land, broke out fountain in the garden and took away some articles. Any details of articles taken away is not disclosed. It is also not stated even during argument that after the occurrence, as stated in the FIR, there has been any repetition of such occurrence. The Police has also not found any case of theft etc. as alleged and it has also submitted final report reporting that the matter involved land dispute. Thus, there is land dispute. The facts and circumstances of the case and the offence alleged do not indicate any serious offence or criminality specially in the circumstances that the FIR was lodged against the accused persons, including five Advocates and their family members also. The petitioner prays for Police protection to his life and property, but presently I do not visualize any emergency or danger so that this Court may feel that Police protection is essential to the petitioner. There appears to be simple dispute between the parties with respect to title and possession over the land in question. In such a situation, even if there is any 6 apprehension of breach of peace between the parties, police can take recourse to process u/s 107, 144 and 145 Cr.P.C. for solving the problem of apprehension of breach of peace. In such view of the matters, I find no merit for grant of relief, as prayed in these two writ applications. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are dismissed. Jay/ ( C. M. Prasad,J )