Bombay High Court
Sopan Jagannath Dhakane And Ors vs S L Bhillare And Ors on 26 August, 2016
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
wp548.07
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 548 OF 2007
1. Sopan s/o Jagannath Dhakane
Age 55 years,Occ. Service
R/o. Wadgaon Dhok, Tq. Georai
District Beed.
2. Vitthal s/o Sopan Dhakane,
Age 25 years,Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Wadgaon Dhok, Tq. Georai
district Beed.
3. Arjun s/o Sitaram Dhakane
Age 52 years,Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Wadgaon Dhok, Tq. Georai
district Beed.
4. Krushna s/o Arjun Dhakane
Age 25 years,Occ. Agriculture
R/o. Wadgaon Dhok, Tq. Georai
district Beed. ...Petitioners
versus
1. S.L. Bhillare
Age 40 years, Occ. Service
Police Head Constable, Georai
Police Station, Georai,
District Beed.
2. The Police Inspector,
Georai Police Station,
Georai, District Beed
3. The District Superintendent of
Police, Beed, district Beed
4. The State of Maharashtra
(Copy to be served on P.P.
High Court of Bombay
Bench at Aurangabad) ...Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2016 00:22:04 :::
wp548.07
-2-
.....
Mr. S.V. Dixit h/f Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, advocate for petitioners
Mr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. For the respondents
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 26th AUGUST, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Being aggrieved by the notice/order passed by the Police
Station Officer, Police Station, Georai, dated 29.9.2006, the
petitioners have filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:-
a) The father of petitioner No.1 had purchased suit land
bearing survey No. 95 and Gat No. 277 admeasuring 2 Acres
and 7 R situated at village Wadgaon Dhok, Tq. Georai,
District Beed, under registered sale deed from one
Prayadgabi on 16.1.1967 for valuable consideration. The
father of the petitioner No.1 remained in possession of the
said land and after his death, petitioner No.1 and his other
family members are in possession of the land and cultivating
it personally. On the basis of said registered sale deed,
mutation entry No. 624 came to be recorded in the revenue
record and after death of father of petitioners; mutation entry
came to be sanctioned in favour of petitioner No.1. However,
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2016 00:22:04 :::
wp548.07
-3-
on 30.9.1988, one Narayanrao Borde, who is son of original
vendor, instituted R.C.S. No. 378 of 1988 challenging therein
the legality and validity of the sale deed and mutation entry.
However, in the year 1994, the said suit came to be
withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit. However, thereafter,
said Narayan has not instituted any suit. On 28.4.2004, after
a period of 22 years from the date of effecting the said
mutation entry, said Narayan Borde filed appeal before the
Sub Divisional Officer challenging the said mutation entry.
The Sub Divisional Officer and learned Additional District
Collector decided the matter against the petitioners.
b) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had
approached the Additional Commissioner by preferring
Revision and the learned Additional Commissioner has
directed the parties to maintain status quo till further orders.
The said appeal was pending till the impugned order is
passed by the police. On 29.9.2006, as aforesaid, the
respondent No.1 has passed order purported to be under
Section 149 of Cr. P. C. directing petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 not
to enter into the suit land. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2016 00:22:04 :::
wp548.07
-4-
No.1 has no authority to pass an order and there is no provision
under Section 149 of Cr.P.C. to pass such order. By passing such
order, the Police Station Officer, Georai has prevented the petitioners
to enter in the field without any basis. The said order, being illegal, is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. I have also heard the learned A.P.P. for the respondents.
5.
Chapter X of Cr.P.C. speaks about maintenance of public
order and tranquility. So far as the dispute as to the immovable
property is concerned, the procedure is contemplated under Sections
145 to 148 of Cr.P.C.. So far as the Chapter XI of Cr.P.C. is
concerned, the police by invoking powers under Section 149 of
Cr.P.C. may interpose for the purpose of preventing any breach and
shall to the best of his ability, prevent the commission of any
cognizable offence. In the case in hand, I do not find any such
contingency as contemplated under Section 149 of Cr.P.C. It is
nowhere stated in the notice/order dated 29.9.2006 that upon
receiving the complaint from any person, the police intends to
interpose for the purpose of preventing the commission of cognizable
offence and for that purpose the petitioners have been directed not to
enter in the field. In absence of any such material, the order
impugned is improper, incorrect and illegal. Hence, I proceed to
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2016 00:22:04 :::
wp548.07
-5-
pass the following order:-
ORDER
I. Writ petition is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause "A".
II. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the
above terms.
ig ( V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
