Sriram Singh vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Heard Mr. Suresh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, learned AAG 12 along with Ms. Nutan Sahay, learned

AC to AAG 12 for the State.

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

“I. For issuance of an appropriate writ /writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo

no. 417/Nya. dt. 13.06.2020 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Aurngabad whereby and where under the petitioner and his brothers have been

restraiend from the enjoining the fruit of the cultivated crop of maize, which is going to be destroyed, on the land of area 08 Bigha bearing Khata no.

41 Plot no. 60, area-07 Acre 67 Dismil lying at Village -Gothani, Thana No. 656, Police Station-Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad as well as from

cultivating the rest land of area about 18 Bigha (as contained in Annexure-8 of the instant writ petition) in fair manner, in its true spirit and as per law

provided by the legislature.

II. For issuance of an appropriate writ /writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 5 & 6 not to

restrain the petitioner or his brother from cultivating the land in question.

III. For issuance of an appropriate writ /writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned Respondent

authorities to pay the compensation of destroyed crop of maize since the concerned police authority i.e., the then S.H.O., Rafiganj Police Station kept

the Chaukidar to restrain the petitioner to reach at the plot in question.

IV. Any other relief/reliefs may also be granted in favour of the petitioner for which he is found to be entitled in law of the facts and circumstances of

the case.â€​

Counter and supplementary counter affidavit as also rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned is without any notice to him and the same, thus, is unsustainable in law.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that besides the fact that the said order may not be in operation today due to efflux of time, but upon

enquiry the authorities have found that the very basis of jamabandi, which was a so-called settlement by the ex-landlord reflected in the return filed by

him, appears to be fraudulent as the writing and colour of the relevant pages of the government record are different due to which the authorities have

cancelled the jamabandi. However, learned counsel fairly submitted that the petitioner has now moved in title suit against his rival and in that suit, he

has the liberty to seek injunction or any other interim relief. Thus, it was submitted that the role of the authorities is limited to ensuring that there is no

law-and-order problem on the ground and for that reason only the restrain order was passed. It was submitted that the authorities cannot shut their

eyes in the event of there being a threat perception to any threat to peace on the land and in the area.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply, submitted that he is in possession over the land and, thus, such order restraining him is not

proper.

Be that as it may, when prima facie, based on reasonable ground, suspicion has been raised with regard to the very authenticity of the document on

which jamabandi was created and title is claimed, coupled with the fact that now the matter is before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, the

Court is not inclined to interfere.

Suffice to say that the authorities are required to ensure that at the spot there is no law-and-order issue or any threat to public peace, for which they

are required to take all possible steps available to them in law. As far as the claim of the petitioner to the land in question, the same, but necessarily,

has to be now decided by the Civil Court before which the lis is pending and in which, if so advised, the petitioner or any party may move an

application for any interim order which they feel is required to be passed.

The writ petition stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.

Before parting, the Court would only observe that it has not gone into merits of the rival claim, which has to be decided by the Civil Court and,

thus, the discussion on merits has not made in this order.