Jharkhand High Court
Sri Shivjee Prasad @ Shivji Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 18 January, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 635 of 2022
1. Sri Shivjee Prasad @ Shivji Prasad
2. Rajesh Kumar Sinha @ Rajesh Kumar Singh
3. Sri Birendra Prasad
4. Sanjay Kumar Pandey
5. Ashok Kumar Sinha
6. Manoj Kumar Sinha
7. Raj Ballabh Giri
8. Sri Satish Chandra Verma
9. Binod Prasad Mehta @ Binod Kumar Mehta
10. Mahendra Prasad @ Mahendra Kishore Prasad
.. ... ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag
3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribag
4. Nagar Nigam/Municipal Corporation through Additional Municipal
Commissioner, Hazaribag
5. Circle Officer, Sadar, Hazaribag
6. Sri Dhiraj Kumar Singh @ Dhirendra Kumar
7. Sri Prakash Nanda @ Prakash Nanda
8. Sri Kamal Kishore Nanda @ Kamal Kishore Nanda
9. Sri Bhola Nath Nanda
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tripurari Prasad, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C.(Mines)-III
For Resp. No.4: Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate
---------
09/Dated: 18.01.2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present criminal writ petition has been filed mainly for the following
reliefs:-
"For the issuance of an appropriate writ(S), Order(S), direction(S)
particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.07.2022
(Annexure-13) in connection with Criminal Revision No. 02/2022 passed by
Learned Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Additional Session Judge-II, Hazaribag in
Criminal Revision case no. 02 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the Learned
Court below has set aside the order dated 28.01.2021 (Annexure-8) passed by the
Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hazaribag corresponding to the Misc case
no. 68 of 2019 under section 133 Cr.P.C.
AND/OR
For, the issuance of an appropriate writ(S), order(S), direction(S) to the
respondents to take appropriate remedy for drainage of rain water and water of the
houses of Mohalla- Okni of the petitioners as under section 133 Cr.P.C. for the
protection of family health of the residents of the Mohalla Okni including the
petitioners."
3. It appears that the proceeding has been initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
at the instance of the present petitioners and registered as Misc. Case No.
68/2019. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"उभय प ों के fon~oku अिधव ा को सुना तथा थम प एवं ि तीय प के ारा दा खल कारण-
पृ ा एवं अपर नगर आयु , नगर िनगम, हजारीबाग के प ां क 845, िदनां क 19/03/2020 के जाँ च
ितवे दन एवं िवप ी के ारा अपने -अपने दावा के प म दा खल कागजात की छाया ित अवलोकन िकया।
म अवलोकन से यह तीत होता है िक oknxr भूिम सावजिनक भू िम नही ं है , पर ु गं दे पानी एवं
बरसाती पानी को बहाने हेतु नाली बना आ है , जो नेशनल प क ू ल के क े वाली भू िम से िनकलता है ।
मौजा- ओकनी एवं मौजा- हजारी के िबचो-बीच पर 10 कड़ी अथात 2/3 x 10 फीट = 20/30 फीट नाली बना
आ है , जो लगभग 70 वष से ढलान की ओर से बहते चली आ रही है । कोई दू सरा िवक नही ं है िक नाली
एवं बरसाती पानी के बहाने की िदशा को मोड़ा जा सके। थम प प क ू ल के पीछे ि तीय प
अित मण कर नाली के बीचो-बीच िदवार खड़ा कर दे ने से नाली का बहाव बं द हो गया है , िजससे हवा दू िषत
एवं जल दू िषत होने की संभावना बढ़ गई है , िजससे वहाँ पर रहने वाले लोगों के ा पर बु रा भाव पड़ने
की संभावना बनी ई है । ऐसी प र थित म ाय म एवं ाकृितक ाय के िस ा अनुसार एवं सामुिहक िहत
को ान म रखते ए ोंिक पानी िनकासी का कोई दु सरा िवक नही ं है , इसिलए ि तीय प को िनदश
िदया जाता है िक आदे श के 15 िदनों के अ र नाली पर खड़ी िदवार को हटा ल अ था ायालय के
आदे शानुसार उसे हटाने की कारवाई की जाएगी एवं उसपर आए सारे खच को ि तीय प से वसूल िकया
जाएगा, इसी आदे श के साथ वाद को समा िकया जाता है।"
4. It appears that against the above judgment of S.D.M, Sadar, Hazaribagh,
Criminal Revision No. 02/2022 has been preferred by respondent nos. 6 to 9 which
was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Hazaribagh. Operative
portion of the judgment read as under:-
"7. From perusal of impugned order, I find that Ld. SDM found after perusal of
material available before him that the disputed land is not a public land. Now from
perusal of so cause filed on behalf of opposite party in this revision, I find that the
opposite party has not disputed that the land is a raiyati land. So, admittedly the
land in question is a raiyati land and it is not shown as a lane/drainage/road even
in the municipal records. Further from perusal of impugned order it appears that
Ld. SDM has not found that the construction made by the opposite party is
unlawful construction, Further it appears that the first party filed application before
Ld. SDM u/s 133 Cr.PC as the water from the drainage of their house was passing
through the raiyati land of second party which was lowered in level. Further it
appears that Ld. SDM has not considered the point of second parties that the flow
of water besides the school can deteriorate the health of the student studies in
school, moreover the second party has made construction over their raiyati land.
Further I find that Ld. SDM has not followed the procedure prescribed u/s 137 &
138 Cr.P.C.
8. Under these circumstances, this court finds illegality and/or irregularity in
the order of leaned S.D.M. Hazaribag, dated 28.01.21 and it is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed.
Let a copy of this order along with LCR be sent to the court below for
information and needful."
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
finding given by both the learned courts below is contrary to the evidence on
record. They have given wrong finding that this land belongs to the petitioners
rather it is a public land. It has been argued that the order passed by the SDM,
Sadar, Hazaribagh, under Section 133 Cr.P.C. shall be sustained.
6. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer of the petitioners and
submitted that once the jurisdictional fact is lacking, no order could have been
passed by the SDM. Once the SDM himself has given finding that it is not a public
land then its jurisdiction gets ousted. In absence of jurisdictional fact, no order
could have been passed. However, the said finding of fact has been accepted by
the revisional court also and since the order passed by the SDM was without
jurisdiction, it has been reversed.
7. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, it appears that both the
courts below have given a finding that it is not a public land.
8. In view of the above findings, the proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is
not maintainable. Accordingly, I find no reason to entertain this criminal writ
petition, hence, it is dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
VK
