BHAGWANJI SAH @ BHAGWANJI TELI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

11. Mr. Bhushan Prasad, B.D.O. Revelganj Block, At and P. O. and P.S. Revelganj, District- Saran.

12. The Officer-in-Charge, Revelganj Police Station, District- Saran. 13. Mr. Usman Khan, Officer-in-Charge, Revelganj Police Station, At and P. O. and P.S. Revelganj, District- Saran. ……………….. Respondents 1st set

14. Babui Lakshmi Kumari 15. Babui Ram Kumari 16. Babui Sheo Kumari Residents of Mohalla- Ajayabganj (within Chapra Town) P.O. and P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District-Saran, presently residing at village P.O. and P.S. Revelganj, District- Saran. ----------------Respondents 2nd set ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Nagendra Rai, Adv. Mr. Navin Nikunj, Adv. For the Opposite Parties :- Mr. A.A.G. I ---------------

18.11.2008 The petitioner seeks a direction commanding the State respondents to put the petitioner back in possession of holding No. 504, area 12 dhurs with structures thereon situate in village- Revelganj, P.O. and P.S. Revelganj, District- Saran after evicting the respondents 2nd set - 2 - from that holding. The case of the petitioner is that Partition Suit No. 53/71 was filed by respondent no. 14 Babui Lakshmi Kumari in the Court of sub- Judge- I, Chapra in which the petitioner is defendant no. 5 and the two sisters of the plaintiff, namely, Babui Ram Kumari (Respondent no. 15) and Babui Shiv Kumari (Respondent no. 16), are defendant nos. 2 and 3. The said partition suit is pending. In the said partition suit, the plaintiff claimed 1/3rd share in the suit properties and the remaining 2/3rd was alleged as belonging to her sisters respondent nos. 15 and 16 and further sought the relief of setting aside sale deeds executed by defendant no. 1, Madan Prasad to defendant nos. 4 to 13 (defendant 3rd set) and for recovery of possession of properties covered under those deeds. The petitioner along with his father (defendant no. 4) filed a joint written statement and contested the suit in which they claimed to be in possession over the land and residing therein along with their family members which fact according to them was admitted in the suit itself. The possession of the petitioner has also been admitted in the examination-in-chief of plaintiff-respondent no. 14 in the said partition suit. It is alleged by the petitioner that all of a sudden the respondent nos. 2 to 13 along with police force forcibly dispossessed and evicted the petitioner and his family members on 3.3.2007 from holding no. 504 and threw away all the belongings and articles of the petitioner and his family members and put the respondent nos. 14 to 16 in possession of the same. The same is stated to have been done on the instructions of the Chief Minister in whose Janta Darbar the complaint has been made by respondent no. 14. - 3 - In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of official respondent nos. 4, 8 and 10 it is stated that respondent nos. 14 to 16 filed petition for their safety and accordingly the official respondents inquired into the matter and respondent nos. 14 and 16 were found residing in their ancestral house which is their suit properties. It is also denied that the official respondents ever evicted the petitioner from any house. It is further stated that the respondent 2nd set appeared in Janta Darbar of Commissioner, Saran Division and prayed for protection from unlawful dispossession and the matter was inquired into by the authorities and the respondent 2nd set was found in peaceful possession over the said holding and the parties were asked to maintain peace. The allegation against the official respondents, of having dispossessed the petitioner from holding no. 504 and put respondent 2nd set in possession, are denied as concocted and imaginary. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary and accordingly direction should be issued to restore the possession of the petitioner over the house in question. In support of the said stand learned counsel relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Amarnath Saw Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.: 2000(3) BLJR 1659 in para 8 of which it has been laid down as follows :- “Once the petitioner’s case regarding his forcible dispossession from the house, which finds enough corroboration from the report of the Magistrate as well as the counter-affidavit of the Officer-in-Charge, is accepted question which would immediately arise is whether the action of the respondents in getting the petitioner forcibly evicted, specially during the pendency of the - 4 - suits filed against each other, was justified. The law on the subject is well settled. Way back in the case of Midnapore Zamindari Company Limited, 1951 Indian Appeals 243, the Privy Council observed, “In are not permitted to take forcible possession, they must obtain such possessions as they are entitled to through a Court.” India, persons A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Yar Mohamand v. lakshmi Das, AIR 1959 Allahabad 1, stated that the law respects possession even if there is no title to support it and it will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess the person in actual possession without taking recourse to the Court. These observations were approved by the Supreme Court in Lallu Jaswant Singh v. Sri Jagdish Singh, AIR 1968 SC 620. In Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570, the Supreme Court observed, “The dispossessed if at all only in pursuance of a decree of Civil Court obtained in proceedings properly initiated. In these circumstances, the action of the Government in taking the law their hands and dispossessing petitioner by the display of force, exhibits a callous disregard of the normal requirement of the rule of law, apart from what might legitimately and reasonably be expected from a Government in a society functioning governed by a constitution which guarantees to its citizens against arbitrary invasion by the executive of a peaceful possession of property”. petitioner The principal was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmendra Prasad Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1997, in which it was held that the possession of the lessee even after the expiry of the lease and its termination is juridical in nature and the lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law.” On a consideration of the materials on record, it is evident that while the petitioner claims to have been dispossessed by the official - 5 - respondents but the said claim is not at all borne out by any material on the record. Factum of dispossession by the official respondents have been totally denied by them and there is nothing on the record to show except the allegation made by the petitioner as to the complicity of the authorities in putting the respondent nos. 14 to 16 in possession over the house in question. Reliance by learned counsel for the petitioner on Amarnath Saw’s case (supra) can be of no assistance to him since in that case there was sufficient material on the record to show that the officials of the State had acted in the matter of dispossessing the petitioner of that case from the house which was the subject matter of title suits between the parties. Thus on the basis of the materials on record, no case is made out for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition shall not stand in the way of the petitioner in pursuing his remedy before the Civil Court in this regard, if so advised. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)