Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15876-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 308 of 2024 Santosh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Kanhaiyalal Jaiswal Aged About 67 Years R/o Molainbhatha, Near Jain Gali, Main Road Katghora, Dist. Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, C.G. 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Raipur, C.G. 3 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, Dist. Korba, C.G. 5 - Station House Officer Police Station Katghora, Dist. Korba, C.G. 6 - Ramprasad Jaiswal S/o Pusauram Aged About 53 Years R/o Mohlainbhatha, Katghora, Dist. Korba, C.G. 7 - Savita Jaiswal W/o Ramprasad Aged About 47 Years R/o Mohlainbhatha, Katghora, Dist. Korba, C.G. 8 - Sundaram Jaiswal S/o Ramprasad Jaiswal Aged About 19 Years R/o Mohlainbhatha, Katghora, Dist. Korba, C.G. 2 9 - Nikita Jaiswal D/o Ramprasad Jaiswal Aged About 21 Years R/o Mohlainbhatha, Katghora, Dist. Korba, C.G. 10 - Ankita Jaiswal S/o Ramprasad Jaiswal Aged About 21 Years R/o Mohlainbhatha, Katghora, Dist. Korba, C.G. 11 - Deepa Diksena W/o Santosh Kumar Aged About 40 Years R/o Semarchuva, Police Station Jarhagaon, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 12 - Amarnath @ Jagannath Dadsena S/o Kanhaiyalal Aged About 77 Years R/o Semarchuva, Police Station Jarhagaon, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 13 - Santosh Dadsena S/o Jagannath Aged About 53 Years R/o Semarchuva, Police Station Jarhagaon, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 14 - Darvesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Rajkumar Aged About 37 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Takhatpur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. 15 - Arti Dadsena D/o Santosh Kumar Aged About 21 Years R/o Semarchuva, Police Station Jarhagaon, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. 16 - Sachin Kumar Agrawal Through Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, Dist. Korba, C.G. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate For Resp. No.1 to 5/State For Resp. No. 6 to 16 : : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Addl. AG Mr. Mohit Kumar Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha
Decision
Order , Chief Justice on Board 04/04/2025 Heard Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 5/State and Mr. Mohit Kumar Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate appearing for respondent No.6 to 16. 3 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent police authorities to place the complete case diary, in respect of the petitioner’s FIR before this Hon’ble Court for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent opolice authroities to handover all the household articles which have been seized by them and also direct the authorities to handover the possession of the premises of the petitioner. 10.3 That, cost the petition may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that brother of the petitioner ie. respondent No.6/Ram Pratap Jaiswal along with his family members and other persons on 15.10.2023 came to the house of the petitioner at about 6.30 am, armed with club and knife and stated that the land belongs to him. Thereafter he assaulted the petitioner and his family members and they sustained injuries. It is alleged that the respondent No.6 had stabbed the son of the petitioner with knife and on being intervened by his daughter, she was assaulted by fists, club and knife. Being aggrieved by the act 4 of the respondent No.6, the petitioner lodged FIR on 15.10.2023at police station Katghora in Crime No. 406/2023 under Sections 147,149,294,506 and 323 IPC. It is submitted that thereafter the police authorities seized the household article of the petitioner and kept the same in a room on the first floor and locked. The possession of the ground floor was given on rent to one Sachin Kumar Agrawal. 4. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation on 11.03.2024 to the Superintendent of Police for taking action on the FIR lodged by the petitioner, however, no action has been taken on the said application till date. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite several representations made to the authorities, action has not been taken against the respondents No.6 to 16 hence the present petition has been filed. 5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that he is residing on the government land since 15 years and the respondent No.6/Ram Pratap Jaiswal who is his brother,has moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for eviction proceedings stating that the petitioner is in possession of house. On the basis of the said application, on 29.09.2023, the Tahsildar had given notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 15.10.2023, the respondents No. 6 to 16 entered the house of the petitioner and assaulted his family members. The police authorities came prepared panchnama and all the household articles were taken into possession by the police, locked in a room 5 and taken possession of the key and removed the petitioner and his family members from the house, the possession of the house was given to respondent No.16. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the house hold articles have been seized by the police an after locking the room, sealed it. 6. Learned State counsel submits that admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No.6 are brothers and the house is constructed on the government land and as there was dispute between the family members over the property and on earlier occasion the petitioner filed a report before the police and on his report, FIR was registered by the police. Thereafter, the respondent No.6 submitted an application before the SDM, Katghora, Ditrict Korba with respect to these proceedings. On the said application, proceedings have been initiated and a preliminary order dated 5.12.2023 has been passed under Section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. 7. Contention of the counsel for respondents No. 6 to 16 is that the respondents No. 6 is the registered owner of the subject land bearing Khasra No. 175/1K in villge Mohlainbhata, Katghora, Patwari Halka No. 10 which is recorded as grass land abadi land. As per CG Land Revenue Code, the possession holder is the owner of the property. It is contended that the respondent No.6 had purchased the subject land from the registered owners Anjore Das and Urmila Bai who are the possession holders and had executed the sale deed on 28,.09.2010 in favour fo the respondent No.6 for a consideration of Rs. 7,70,000/-. The sale deed was executed in 6 presence of the witnesses and possession was handed over to the respondent No.6. It is contended that the respondent No. 6 was paying the tax to the Municipal Council, Katghora from time time and had taken electric connection of the premises after constructing a house and residing with his family since the year 2010. On 20.09.2023, he had filed application to the SDO (P), Katghora District Korba regarding complaint against the petitioner and his family members that the petitioner had entered the house of the respondent No.6, assaulted and threatened to kill. Thereafter when he had gone to Hyderabad on tour, the petitioner entered in his house after breaking the lock and took possession and on being asked to vacate the house, the petitioner started quarreling and assaulting the family members. On 5.12.2023, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had passed a preliminary order regarding dispute over possession of the land. He therefore submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and the petition has no merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 9. From the given facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the main dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No.6 over the property. The material available on record reveals that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Katghora had passed the order dated 5.12.2023 restraining the petitioner frominterfering in possession of respondent NO.6 on the disputed 7 land. Dcouments reveal that the petitioner’s household articles were seized by the police under Section 102 Cr.P.C, 1973 and inventory has been prepared. 10. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and from perusal of the records, it is directed that the respondent No.1 to 5/State shall handover the household articles of the petitioner. 11. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. However, the proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. pending before the SDM, Katghora shall be concluded within a period of six weeks in accordance with law. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.07 12:58:05 +0530