Gurnam Singh S/O Late Shri. ... vs The Divisional Forest Officer ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2342 Bom

       wp2260.16.odt                                                                         1/3   



                  
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                             
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                     
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 2260 OF 2016


              Gurnam Singh s/o late Shri Channan Singh Jabbal,
              aged about 61 yrs., Occp. Business,




                                                    
              r/o Plot No.1 Gurunanakpura,
              Panchpaoli, Nagpur.             ::      ....  PETITIONER

                                      //  VERSUS //




                                        
          1. The Divisional Forest Officer (Depurty
                             
             Conservator of Forests) Civil Lines, Nagpur.

          2. National Timber Mart, through its partner
                            
             Prakash Singh Chanan Singh Jabbal
             Plot No. A2/2, Raj Nagar Bank Colony, Nagpur.

          3. Prakash Singh Chanan Singh Jabbal,
      

             aged about 66 yrs., Occp. Business,
             Plot No. A2/2, Hari Niwas, S.B.I. Colony,
   



             Rajnagar, Nagpur.

          4. The Commissioner of Police, 
             Civil Lines, Nagpur.





        5. The Police Station Officer,
           Police Station, Jaripataka,
           Nagpur.             ::                        .... RESPONDENTS
     ______________________________________________________________





                    Shri S. Wahane, Advocate for petitioner.  
           Shri S. B. Ahirkar, A. G. P. for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5.
     ______________________________________________________________

                                  CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 05 MAY, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

wp2260.16.odt 2/3

None for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 although notice for final

disposal has been served upon them. Heard. Rule, made returnable

forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the

proper enquiry is made in this case, the application filed for seeking

police aid by application (Exh.221) could not have been rejected by the

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division. He submits that the learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division also could have thought of appointing

Commissioner for ascertaining the factual situation.

3. Learned A.G.P. submitted that an appropriate order may

be passed in this case.

4. It is seen from the impugned order that request for grant

of police aid has been rejected only on the ground that names of 5-6

persons present on 16/9/2014 have not been stated in the application.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was the contention

of the petitioners that those 5-6 persons were the henchmen of the

original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and,

therefore, the petitioner could not have known their names.

5. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is

reasonable. If some persons acting on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and

3 had done some thing, it cannot be expected of the petitioner to know

their names. Even otherwise, when a specific allegation regarding

wp2260.16.odt 3/3

deliberate creation of obstruction in the peaceful enjoyment of the

property has been made, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division ought

to have made proper enquiry in the matter and should have granted

liberty to the petitioner for making prayer for appointment of the

Commissioner. As that has not been done, I do not think that the

impugned order can be said to be legal and proper, in as much as,

upholding the interest of justice.

6.

In the result, I am of the view that the writ petition

deserves to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly.

The impugned order, so far as it rejects application vide Exh.221, is quashed and set aside.

The matter pertaining to prayer made in application vide Exh.221 is remanded back to the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Nagpur for its fresh consideration, in accordance with law.

Liberty shall be granted to the petitioner to make an application for appointment of Commissioner and if such an application is made, same shall be decided in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of

the application. Thereafter, the application vide Exh.221 shall be appropriately decided within four weeks from the submission of Commissioner's Report.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

JUDGE wwl