Paspat Prasad vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.P. Singh, J.—In the instant writ application the petitioner seeks direction to the District Administration to provide police protection to the petitioner for safety of his life and property. The facts giving rise for seeking the reliefs in short are as follows:-

(a) The Land Ceiling Case No. 41/ 46 of 1976-77 was started in the name of Baldeo Prasad Karta of the joint family, wherein the Circle Officers of three Anchals recommended for 38 Units in favour of Baldeo Prasad. The petitioner being aggrieved moved the higher Courts and finally learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.8.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3316 of 2000 allowed nine more units to the petitioner''s family.

(b) A Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 347 of 2005 was preferred against the order dated 12.8.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3116 of 2000. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.5.2005 contained in Annexure-2 dismissed the L.P.A. filed by the District Administration.

(c) In the meantime the certain land of the petitioner was declared as surplus in a Notification u/s 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act, and these lands were distributed to 102 landless persons of Village-Araria Barwa by way of Parcha. In this respect the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 3316 of 2000 against the impugned Notification and distribution of Parcha to the landless persons.

This Court vide interim orders dated 13.11.2002 and 8.4.2003 observed that the land which has been shown as surplus in notification u/s 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act should not be distributed to any third party and the land owner should not be forcibly dispossessed. In view of the order of this Hon''ble High Court at the instance of the S.D.O., Narkatiaganj, Anchaladhikari cancelled the Parcha vide order dated 30.8.2003 as contained in Annexure-3.

Many Parcha holders filed interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 3035 of 2004 for being added as a party which was rejected by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 5.8.2004. An L.P.A. against the aforesaid order dated 5.8.2004 filed by the Parcha holders was also dismissed on 4.1.2005 vide L.P.A. No. 1228/04 were adament to resist the petitioner for cultivating the land in respect of which the Parcha distributed to them were cancelled. The petitioner approached the District Administration for deputing armed force for cultivation of the land and the petitioner even lodged an F.I.R. against some of the Parchaholders with Subhadra Police Station being Case No. 44 of 2005.

The petitioner, filed Cr.WJ.C. No. 836 of 2005 for a direction to the District Magistrate, West Champaran, for deputation of Armed Police to facilitate agricultural work at village Araria Barwa and for registration of a case against the extremists.

This Court vide order dated 11.8.2006 passed in Cr.WJ.C. No. 836 of 2005 directed the petitioner to exercise his option u/s 9 of the Ceiling Act within two weeks from the date of the order and further directed the District Magistrate to provide all possible protection in respect of his agricultural work connected with the land in respect of which his right has already been declared.

The Collector vide his Letter No. 1110/bidhi, dated 26.12.2006 directed the Circle Officer, Gaunaha to provide appropriate Security in respect of his agricultural cultivation in view of the order passed in Cr.WJ.C. No. 836 of 2005.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was only a token compliance of the order of the Hon''ble High Court and the direction of the Collector dated 26.12.2006 contained in Annexure-6. The police force, in fact, came for a few hours on his field on one of the dates and thereafter despite repeated representations they did not come to the field to facilitate his agricultural cultivation. The learned lawyer submits that his rights have been declared by a decree and pronouncement of this Court in respect of the land and as such he is entitled to police protection in this respect.

The learned counsel for the State submits that the police force are not in too many numbers and District Administration has to perform numerous functions with this limited strength. He submits that it is not practically feasible to depute police force at disposal at a person for several days.

It appears that the rights of the petitioner in respect of his land including agricultural land have been decided in C.W.J.C. No. 3116 of 2000 which stood affirmed in L.P.A. No. 347-05. The L.P.A. No. 1228/04 filed by Parcha holders also was dismissed on 4.1.2005 Further more this Court vide order dated 11.11.2005 directed the District Magistrate to provide at possible protection in respect of the agricultural work connected with his land.

In case of P.R. Murlidharan and Others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others, enumerated some of the circumstances in which a person may be entitled to police protection. In this respect the Apex Court observed:-

"A person may be entitled to a police protection if there is threat perception to his life and liberty or for protection of rights declared by a decree or order passed by a civil court."

A Bench of this Court in a case of Uma Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, was also considering more or less a similar issue though in respect of a different subject matter. It would be useful to quote relevant extract of the order as mentioned in para 5.

"In a civilized society governed by the rule of law every citizen has a right to enjoy his or her property emfettered by interference, except in accordance with law. Any interference with this right of enjoyment without the sanction of the law cannot be countenanced by a court of law. Should such enjoyment of properties sanctioned by law be interfered with, it shall be the solemn duty of the State to ensure that a citizen is permitted to live freely and fearlessly and enjoy the property."

This Court is conscious of the fact that adequate police protection cannot be provided all the time for days and hours as it has to discharge other obligation also. But such ground cannot be a reason for not providing police protection to persons in respect of his rights which has been declared by decree of courts. To provide police protection to persons whose rights have been so declared by court in respect of his agricultural cultivation is also one of the obligation of District Administration. It cannot shirk this obligation on the ground that it has limited police resources at its disposal.

This Court finds that petitioner had made out a case for police protection in respect of his right to his agricultural cultivation. Thus, in view of the above discussions if the petitioner files a petition before the Circle Officer/concerned police station or the District Administration for deployment of police protection on certain some fixed dates and hours the Administration is liable to ensure such protection and also to see that there is no illegal or unauthorized interference. With the aforesaid observations this criminal writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned above.