Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2278 of 2009 ====================================================== Dinesh Prasad Sharma son of late Paras Nath Singh, resident of Village- Chapour, P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna. Versus .... .... Petitioner. 1. The State of Bihar 2. Birendra Kumar Sinha (S.D.O. Civil), Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Masaurhi (Patna). 3. Prabhat Kumar Sinha (the then Civil S.D.O. Masaurhi, at present working as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, District- Siwan. 4. Jitendra Kumar Sinha, District Magistrate (District Magistrate, Patna). 5. Ramesh Sharma, 6. Ganesh Singh, 7. Chandrabali Singh @ Mahesh Singh, All sons of late Bakunth Singh. All residents of Village- Chapour, P.S. Masaurhi, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr.Sidharth Sharma Mr. Sharmila Kumari
Legal Reasoning
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG-10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 30 15-05-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner filed Cr.W.J.C. No. 170 of 2008 with a prayer for direction to the respondent authorities to ensure compliance of the order dated 29.11.2005 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Masaurhi under Section 145(6) of Cr.P.C. in case no.164 of 1999 requiring removal of encroachments made by opposite party nos. 5 to 7 on 2 decimals of land appertaining to Khata no.381, Plot no.1692 in village Chapour, P.S. Masaurhi, 2 Patna High Court MJC No.2278 of 2009 (30) dt.15-05-2013 2 / 6 District Patna. The S.D.M. also recorded in his order that in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. between the parties, the possession was decided in favour of the petitioner. A revision application bearing Cr. Rev. No.896 of 2005 was preferred against the order declaring possession of petitioner by Chandrabali Shukla and Ramesh Sharma, which too was dismissed on 05.01.2007 by Additional Sessions Judge-V, Patna. The opposite parties filed Cr.W.J.C. No.170 of 2008 against order of Revisional court as well as Magistrate which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2009 directing the S.D.M., Masaurhi to ensure strict compliance of order dated 29.11.2005 without any further delay. 3. The petitioner raised a grievance in the instant contempt application that the order of this Court has not been complied with. Notices were issued and the District Magistrate, Patna was asked to make an enquiry regarding compliance of the order. The S.D.J.M., Masaurhi was entrusted vide order dated 30.06.2010 to ascertain the facts and make a report on the status of the land to this Court within three months. The S.D.J.M. reported that the order of this Court was not complied with. 4. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned AAG-10 assured this Court that the order of this Court would be complied duly. Notice 3 Patna High Court MJC No.2278 of 2009 (30) dt.15-05-2013 3 / 6 was also issued to newly added opposite parties namely opposite party nos. 5 to 7 vide order dated 08.02.2012. Pursuant to notice opposite party nos. 5 to 7 appeared and were granted four weeks time to file show-cause by order dated 20.06.2012. 5. On 17.04.2013, Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned AAG- 10 appeared and filed detailed show-cause stating that the order of this Court has been fully complied with. In support of his submissions, learned counsel submits that encroachment has been removed and possession of two decimals of land has been handed over to the petitioner. Learned counsel has also placed on record a Compact Disc in support of the stand that encroachment has been removed and petitioner has been given possession over two decimals of land. 6. Counsel for the petitioner sought time to file reply to the show-cause and the case was adjourned for 08.05.2013. 7. The rejoinder dated 30.04.2012 was filed by the petitioner to the show-cause dated 09.04.2013 of opposite party no.2 and 3. It is relevant to state that the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application for impleading the new Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi Pawan Kumar Sinha, who has come as Sub- Divisional Officer, Masaurhi in place of his predecessors bearing 4 Patna High Court MJC No.2278 of 2009 (30) dt.15-05-2013 4 / 6 I.A. No.2674 of 2013. 8. The petitioner in his reply to the show-cause stated that the new Sub-Divisional Officer, Chandra Shekhar Prasad Sinha personally appeared on 17.04.2013 though he was not impleaded as opposite party. The petitioner further raised a grievance regarding discrepancy in area of plot no.1692. The petitioner stated that opposite party ought to have got delivered the possession of the second room for purposes of giving possession in place of demolishing it. 9. The main issue in this case is whether order dated 09.01.2009 passed by this Court directing compliance of the order dated 29.11.2005 of S.D.M., Masaurhi for removal of encroachment by opposite party nos. 5 to 7 has been complied with or not. 10. In paragraph 8 of the show-cause, it has been stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi vide his order under 145(6) of Cr.P.C. directed the opposite party nos. 5 to 7 to remove encroachment from khata no. 381, plot no.1692 measuring two decimals of land. It is stated in paragraph 8 that on aforesaid two decimals land, two rooms were found constructed. One room on the west side was found in possession of the petitioner and the 5 Patna High Court MJC No.2278 of 2009 (30) dt.15-05-2013 5 / 6 other on east-west side was found vacant. One room standing on 2 decimal of land was treated as encroachment by the 2nd party by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 11. The stand of State is that in fact the second room that was vacant was said to have been encroached by the opposite party nos. 5 to 7. It has been further stated that plot no. 1692 has more than two decimals of land which is a bone of contention between the parties. 12. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Masaurhi vide Memo no. 863 dated 20.03.2013 issued to Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Masaurhi, Circle Officer, Masaurhi, S.H.O., Masaurhi, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Masaurhi sought compliance of the order of this Court. To ensure transparency, Videography was conducted for the whole process in presence of the officials, the parties, the Mukhiya and the villagers. The second room said to be in possession of the opposite party nos. 5 to 7 was demolished. Still photography as well as C.D. of the whole episode was taken. The State has specifically stated that possession of the land has been handed over to the petitioner after removal of the alleged encroachment. The copies of still photos have also been appended. 6 Patna High Court MJC No.2278 of 2009 (30) dt.15-05-2013 6 / 6 13. Thus, I find that the order of this Court has been duly complied with. 14. In the circumstances, this contempt application is dropped. In case, the petitioner has any grievance, it will be open for him to pursue his remedy available under law. Uday/- (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)