Ishwari Lal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.4716 of 2008 (10) dt.13-02-2013 Devi, since the same was in possession of the P.W.D. now the Road Construction Department. This direction has been labeled as uncalled for as well as beyond jurisdiction of the authorities, as it is none of the business of an Executive Authority to direct handing over the possession where there is a bonafide civil dispute between the parties. The private-respondent, Meera Devi is said to have purchased a land having 1 room tenant with a Varandaha and boundary wall consisting of 9 decimals, by virtue of a sale-deed on 17.10.1981 from one Shaligram Singh, relating to Khata No. 2, Khesara No.

30. The total area of Khata No. 2, Khesara No. 30 is stated to be 26 decimals, out of which only 9 decimals was purchased by the private-respondent. On 30.01.1984, Meera Devi made an offer to the S.D.O., P.W.D., Katoria to let-out the said property on rent to the concerned department. That offer was accepted and respondent officials came possession as a tenant with regard to the property purchased by the private-respondent. An office was being run in the said property by the P.W.D. Department. It is the case of the petitioners that further from Plot No. 30, one Dwarika Prasad Yadav, purchased Patna High Court CWJC No.4716 of 2008 (10) dt.13-02-2013

10.25 decimals of land and made constructions of two rooms each. One of the set of two rooms was let-out to Petitioner No. 1, who was working as a Clerk in the P.W.D. Department at Katoria. Meera Devi filed Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1993, against the P.W.D. Department, where Petitioner No. 1 was also impleaded as Defendant No. 3. Since there was default in payment of rent etc. Statement was made in the plaint of the eviction suit that though the premises was rented out for running an office of P.W.D., Petitioner No. 1 started residing in the said property. The is matter contested by Petitioner No. 1. The wife of Petitioner No. 1, i.e., Petitioner No. 2 is said to have purchased an area of 3.25 decimals from Plot No. 30 vide sale-deed dated 25.05.1995 from Dwarika Prasad Yadav. It is said that this property was the one, which was rented out to Petitioner No. 1 by the said Dwarika Prasad Yadav. After the purchase, Petitioner No. 2 is supposed to have added three more rooms with a Varandaha etc. to the said property. In the eviction suit, the P.W.D. Department took a plea that they have already vacated the property of private- respondent on 02.09.1995 and have no concern with the suit property. However, possession was not being given Patna High Court CWJC No.4716 of 2008 (10) dt.13-02-2013 to the private-respondent, because Petitioner No. 1 was occupying that property. It seems that as a retaliation, a Title Suit No. 64 of 2000 was filed in the Court of Munsif, Banka, where the private-respondent and her husband were made defendants with a claim that it is not the rented out property, which is under the occupation of Petitioner No. 1, but is part and parcel of the purchased property of Petitioner No. 2, wife of Petitioner No. 1. The Court is not required to get into the details of the two disputes, i.e., the eviction suit or the title suit, as they are independent proceedings in their own right. The Court, however, has to examine as per the contention of the counsel for Respondent No. 6 whether the decision of the Circle Officer, Katoria to hand over the property to the private-respondent in terms of Annexure- 9 merits interference in the present Writ Application or not. A detailed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 6 has been filed. She has given the background and evidence of the purchase of property, the renting out of the property and how Petitioner No. 1 started living in that property in the garb of protecting the valuable documents of the office as well as cash etc., which used to be kept there during course of official Patna High Court CWJC No.4716 of 2008 (10) dt.13-02-2013 business, as there was no Chowkidar provided for their protection. However, slowly and steadily when greed of Petitioner No. 1 increased, he started eying the property of private-respondent, taking advantage of her position in society and purchased some property adjacent to the property of the private-respondent. By virtue of the said purchase he started extending his boundary and trying to claim that the property which was rented out to the P.W.D. Department is not the property and the property under occupation of Petitioner No. 1 is the property which had been purchased by his wife and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Circle Officer to pass an order for vacation of this property. The Circle Officer, Katoria has also filed a counter affidavit. He has stated that on a pressure being put by the private-respondent upon the authorities of P.W.D. to hand over the property to her, the Executive Engineer approached the District Magistrate with an opinion of the Government Pleader, Banka based on an order passed by the High Court dated 20th of January, 1998 in Civil Revision No. 2131 of 1996 to hand over vacant possession of the property, which was taken on rent by them. They wanted to hand over possession forthwith, as continuance of any person in that property including, Patna High Court CWJC No.4716 of 2008 (10) dt.13-02-2013 petitioner no. 1, after their desire to hand over and having vacated it, would have created problems for the Department. It is in this background that the District Magistrate gave a direction upon Sub-Divisional Magistrate and who in turn directed the Circle Officer to ensure that the rented property once vacated by the Department went back to Respondent No. 6 in a vacant position without any dispute thereof. It is their case that the Department had issued several directions Petitioner no. 1, who also happens to be a government servant but his refusal led to initiation of a disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner No. 1 however, in gross violation of those directives and in complete defiance, has been persisting in staying over in the property without any care for the law to ward off meaningful handing over of the possession. Whatever be the contention of the petitioners with regard to the manner in which they have acquired a right which in any way is a subject matter of adjudication by the civil court, but one thing is evident that the conduct of Petitioner No. 1, who is a government servant, is unbecoming of a government servant. When there is no dispute being raised by the actual tenants, i.e., the P.W.D. Department as to the property, which was taken Patna High Court CWJC No.4716 of 2008 (10) dt.13-02-2013 on rent and they have taken steps for handing over that property back to the landlord, i.e., Respondent No. 6, then the question arises is whether a person like Petitioner No. 1, who by virtue of his stay in that office premises can be permitted now to come in the way of handing over possession between the department and the private-respondent. Obviously, since Respondent No. 6 is a woman and Petitioner No. 1 wants to take advantage of his position and stay in that property and create a situation where she is compelled to either abandon the property or make a distress sell in favour of Petitioner No. 1. Obviously, law has not been created to further the greed and exploitative technique of a person when he has no locus as such to resist vacation of the property. Property was taken on rent by the P.W.D. Department, if he by virtue of an employee of the P.W.D. Department started living in that property then at the end of the property being vacated or handed over, the employee cannot remain in that property putting up one plea or defence against his ouster. The Court will never justifiy the action of Petitioner No. 1 and would like to deprecate such conduct, especially coming from a government servant. Patna High Court CWJC No.4716 of 2008 (10) dt.13-02-2013 The Court, therefore, would direct the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. now Road Construction Department, Banka to ensure that a disciplinary proceeding so initiated is taken to its logical end and appropriate orders are passed, depending on the outcome of the enquiry and the evidence. This must be expedited, if not expedited already, and concluded. The Circle Officer must ensure that the property in question is vacated and handed over to the Private-Respondent No. 6 forthwith without any delay, if necessary the Superintendent of Police, Banka and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Banka will extend due assistance under the overall supervision of the District Magistrate to ensure that the private- respondent gets her property back, since P.W.D. Department / Road Construction Department is no longer resisting returning the property back to the Private-Respondent No. 6. Direction of this Court must be implemented without any further delay in this regard and compliance must be reported to the Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna. The Writ Application in view of the above has no merit and is dismissed, as Annexure- 9 has been passed in the background to the dispute. It is not an effort on the part of the executive to delve in a civil dispute but Patna High Court CWJC No.4716 of 2008 (10) dt.13-02-2013 implement the desire of the government department to hand over the property under their possession as a tenant in which petitioner no. 1 is creating impediment. Writ Application has no merit, it is dismissed. SKM/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)