Sri Lakshmi Narayan Trust @ Chorout Math vs The State of Bihar & Ors.

The present criminal writ application has been filed

by the petitioner for commanding the respondents to provide

lawful protection to the properties held and possessed by him

which is under the threat of anti-social elements.

The writ application has been filed by Sri

Lakshmi Narayan Trust @ Chorout Math (for short ''the trust'')

through its trustee Anand Kand Das.

It is submitted by Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner that the trustee Anand Kand

Das succeeded as Mahanth after death of his Guru Mahant

Shayam Narayan Das in 2005. The trust has vast property and

there are 11 deities installed in various temples and situated at

different places, i.e., Sitamarhi and Madhubani. It is submitted

that after final publication under Section 11(1) of the Ceiling Act,

in L.C. Appeal Case No. 6/1984, the Collector, Sitamarhi held that

the erstwhile Mahanth late Shayam Narayan Das was entitled to

retain one unit for himself as Shebait and six units for the deities

equivalent to 210 acres of Class IV land and declared 154.73 acres

of land of the trust as surplus which was later on distributed to

landless persons. After the order of the Collector, final publication

under Section 11(1) of the Ceiling Act was published on

01.08.1985 allowing the land holder to retain 210 acres of land. It

is submitted that sometimes in 1986, at the instance of application

filed by the secretary of a political party, steps were taken to

reopen the ceiling proceeding of late Mahanth Shayam Narayan

Das under the orders of the Deputy Secretary of Revenue and

Land Reforms Department by the Collector, Sitamarhi under

Section 45B of the Ceiling Act. However, the ceiling proceeding

which was reopened on 06.08.1989 was quashed by this Court

vide order dated 17.07.1990 passed in CWJC No. 10404 of 1989.

Again, at the instance of some local leaders of a particular political

party, the Collector, Sitamarhi vide order dated 25.07.1995

reopened the case under Section 45B of the Ceiling Act which was

again challenged by late Mahanth Shayam Narayan Das in CWJC

No. 9768 of 1995 and vide order dated 25.06.1997, this Court

quashed the proceeding. It is submitted that again the local leaders

of a particular political party are trying to dispossess the petitioner

from its land by fixing red flags over the land. The disturbance

created by the political party is out and out interference in the right

of property of the petitioner which is required to be saved and

protected by the district administration.

Mr. Shahi submitted that since the trust is a

public religious trust under the control of Bihar State Religious

Board, on complaint made by the trustee, even the Chairman of

the Bihar Religious Board vide letter dated 28.06.2012 requested

the Collector, Sitamarhi to take action and protect the land of the

trust from illegal dispossession. Mr. Shahi submitted that private

respondent nos. 10 to 30 are encroachers over the land of the trust

and despite repeated representations, no step has been taken by the

authorities of the district administration to remove them.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of

respondent nos. 2, 5 and 6 wherein it is stated that as and when

information has been received by the respondents, effective steps

have been taken for maintenance of law and order.

It is submitted by Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha,

learned Assistant Counsel for G.A.-11 that in past, the authorities

of the State have always acted in good faith. In future also

whenever an occasion would arise, they would take steps in

accordance with law to protect the rightful claim of the petitioner.

On the other hand, Mr. Yogesh Chandra

Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 11,

12, 14, 15, 17, 19 to 24, 26 and 29 submitted that the respondents

being represented by him are peacefully enjoying the possession

over the survey plot nos. 14051 and 14052 since more than 30

years. They have constructed hutment and shops over the land and

they are not encroachers over the land of the petitioner. Mr.

Verma, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the private

respondents are not members of any political party and they are

not anti-social elements. He submitted that they have never been

noticed by any court in connection with their possession over the

land on which they are living with their families. He submitted

that several disputed questions of facts have been raised in the

instant writ application, which can only be decided in the suit

before the competent court under the law and the writ application

is fit to be dismissed.

In reply, Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner submitted that the private respondents

illegally and unauthorizedly entered into the land of the trust in the

year 2012 and illegally constructed hutments. He submitted that

the matter was reported to the Officer-in-Charge with a request to

take action against the persons named thereon and to restore the

land in favour of petitioner after removing them and to provide

protection to the property of the trust. A similar application was

also filed before the Circle Officer for taking action against the

encroachers of the land of the trust on 18th June, 2012 pursuant to

which notices were issued to the respondents to vacate the land of

the trust, but no action has been taken since then. He submitted

that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India should direct the official respondents to

evict the private respondents from the land of the petitioner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the materials available on record.

In the opinion of this Court, in respect of an

immovable property, if a person claims title and he does not have

a possession, the remedy lies in filing a suit for declaration and

possession with or without consequential injunction may be in a

given facts and circumstances of a case along with declaration to

his title or interest. Further, where there is merely an interference

with person''s rightful possession or where there is a threat of

dispossession, or where there is frustration or interference in the

free and full enjoyment of the property, the remedy lies to sue for

an injunction simplicitor.

In the opinion of this Court, a writ application

under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police

authorities to give protection to the petitioner cannot be made

forum for adjudicating on civil rights. Thus, it would not be proper

for this Court to issue any writ of mandamus against the private

respondents in the present writ proceeding.

However, if a rightful owner who is in

possession of the property is under threat of its dispossession by

anti-social elements or a group of persons, the Court cannot shut

its eyes and such anti-social elements cannot be permitted to

encroach over the property or occupy the property by illegal

means.

In that view of the matter, in the event the

petitioner trust feels that the properties held and possessed by it is

likely to be encroached in future by anti-social elements, it may

make a proper representation to the Superintendent of Police,

Sitamarhi who after conducting an inquiry made in this behalf,

may pass an appropriate order as is permissible in law. Under such

circumstances, if the Superintendent of Police feels that the

petitioner being lawful owner is in possession of property and

there is threat of forcible dispossession, he shall provide it

adequate police protection.

With these observations and directions, this

writ application is disposed of.