Letters Patent Appeal No. 1233 of 2012 · Patna High Court · 2011
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1233 of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18347 of 2008 With Interlocutory Application No. 5263 of 2012 With Interlocutory Application No. 5264 of 2012 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1233 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Patna 2. The Collector, Patna 3. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna 5. Officer-In-Charge, Shastrinagar Police Station, Patna Versus 1. Akhil Bhartiya Paryavaran Avam Gramin Vikas Sansthan through its .... .... Respondents-Appellants Honorary Secretary, Geeta Devi W/O Rajendra Ram, resident of Mohalla- Gardanibagh Hospital Campus, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna ….. Petitioner-Respondent (1st Set) 2. Syed Asgar Ali S/O Late Nawab Zada Syed Md. Mehdi, resident of Guzri Patna City, P.S.- Khajkalan, District- Patna. .... .... Respondent/Respondent ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Gyan Shankar, A.C. to G.P.-6 Mr. Dev Kumar Pandey, A.C. to G.P.-6 For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Syed Alamdar Hussain, Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocates. For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 15-04-2013 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 5264 of 2012: The delay of 48 days occurred in filing the Letters 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1233 of 2012 (5) dt.15-04-2013 2 / 5 Patent Appeal is condoned.
Decision
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1233 of 2012: Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16th November 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 18347 of 2008, the respondent- State of Bihar has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute is a piece of land admeasuring 16 Kathas 04 Dhurs of land Thana No. 7, Plot No. 526, Khata No. 349 admeasuring 9.84 acres situated at Dhakanpur, District- Patna. The respondent-writ petitioner claims title over the disputed piece of land through the respondent no.2, Syed Asgar Ali. The respondent no. 1, the writ petitioner claims to be a registered and recognized Non Government Organisation engaged in philanthropic activities. The title of the said Syed Asgar Ali over the entire land was the subject matter of dispute in Title Suit No. 153 of 1981 then pending in the court of Subordinate Judge-I, Patna. It is indisputable that the writ petitioner purchased the disputed piece of land pending the above referred Title Suit No. 153 of 1981. Since then, the said Title Suit No. 153 of 1981 for declaration of title has been dismissed. The court below has passed decree for declaration that the suit land was public land. The plaintiff and the writ petitioner both have preferred appeal against the decree passed by the trial court. Both the said appeals are pending for hearing and final decision by this Court. It appears that pending the suit, the writ petitioner made an attempt to raise construction over the disputed piece of land. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Patna, the appellant no. 3, 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1233 of 2012 (5) dt.15-04-2013 3 / 5 therefore, sent communication dated 24th November 2008 to the concerned Police Station Officer informing him that some persons were illegally filling the earth and to restrain them from filling up the land and from raising construction over it. A similar intimation was sent on 27th November 2008 in respect of the encroachment made by the petitioner on 16 Kathas of the land Khesra no. 526. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 18347 of 2008 for quashing the said letters dated 24th November 2008 and letter dated 27th November 2008 insofar as it affected the writ petitioner. It was the case of the writ petitioner that it had purchased the disputed land through the registered sale deeds; that it had absolute right, title and interest over the disputed piece of land and that it is in possession of the disputed piece of land. According to the writ petitioner, it had purchased the disputed piece of land for using the same for imparting education to the children from the lower strata of the society and to bring them at par with the main stream of the society. Pending the petition, the writ petitioner appears to have assured this Court that in case it loses in the First Appeal, it will hand over the vacant possession of the disputed piece of land and the construction made over it to the State Government. The said assurance has been recorded in the order dated 27th October 2010 made in the Interlocutory Application No. 8776 of 2010. Learned advocate Mr. Gyan Shankar has appeared for the appellant State of Bihar. He has submitted that the title suit has been dismissed and the decree for declaration has been passed in favour of the State Government. The writ petitioner, therefore, 4 Patna High Court LPA No.1233 of 2012 (5) dt.15-04-2013 4 / 5 cannot claim right or title over the disputed piece of land. The appellants were justified in restraining the writ petitioner and the others from making construction over the suit land pending the suit. Now that the land has been declared to be the public land, the writ petitioner could not have been permitted to raise construction over the disputed land. Learned counsel Mr. Syed Alamdar Hussain has appeared for the respondent, the writ petitioner. He has vehemently argued that in 1989 when the writ petitioner purchased the parcels of land from its vendors, the vendors had the clear title over the parcels of land; the title of the writ petitioner is, therefore, clear and absolute. The writ petitioner has also given an undertaking to this Court to hand over the possession of the land and the construction made thereon, in case the petitioner loses in the First Appeal. If the writ petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the disputed land, it is a misnomer. No person can pass a title better than the one he has. It has now been proved that the above referred Syed Asgar Ali had no title over the land in question. He could not have passed title to his purchasers, the vendors of the writ petitioner; nor could the writ petitioner have acquired any title over the disputed piece of land. As on the date, the writ petitioner may be in possession of the disputed piece of land but as decided by the Civil Court, the writ petitioner does not have a title over the disputed piece of land. So long as the dispute is pending before this Court, the writ petitioner cannot be permitted to develop the disputed piece of land in any manner whatsoever. Even if the petitioner intends to carry on philanthropic activities on the disputed piece of land, it cannot be permitted to do so. Once the 5 Patna High Court LPA No.1233 of 2012 (5) dt.15-04-2013 5 / 5 land is declared to be public land, it is the duty of the writ petitioner to hand over possession of the disputed piece of land to the State Government. In case the State Government has not taken any action to recover the possession of the disputed piece of land from the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner cannot be permitted to raise construction over the said land. The learned single Judge was unnecessarily carried away by the fact that the writ petitioner intends to use the land for a noble cause. The learned single Judge has also overlooked the fact that the petitioner has purchased the disputed piece of land pending the suit, the principle of lis pendens would apply. The decision in the suit is binding to the writ petitioner. For the aforesaid reason, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16th November 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 18347 of 2008 is set aside. CWJC No. 18347 of 2008 is dismissed. Until the writ petitioner hands over the possession of the disputed piece of land to the State Government, the petitioner will maintain status quo in respect of the possession and user of the disputed piece of land and will not hand over the possession of the said land or any part thereof to any person whosoever or will not create a third party interest in any manner whatsoever. Interlocutory Application No. 5263 of 2012 stands disposed of. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Sujit/-