Patna High Court
Damodar Pandey vs The State Of Bihar on 17 September, 2024
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13692 of 2024
======================================================
1. Damodar Pandey S/o Late Ram Narayan Pandey, R/o village Pisay, P.S.
Obra, District - Aurangabad. At Present R/o Srikrishna Nagar, Ahari, P.S.
and District - Aurangabad.
2. Vashishth Pandey S/o Late Ram Narayan Pandey, R/o village Pisay, P.S.
Obra, District - Aurangabad. At Present R/o Srikrishna Nagar, Ahari, P.S.
and District - Aurangabad.
3. Sunil Sharma, S/o Late Nathuni Sharma alias Nathuni Singh, R/o village
Ubb, P.S. Obra, District Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Vikash Bhawan, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Vikas Bhawan, Bihar, Patna.
3. Collector cum District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
4. Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad.
5. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad.
6. Circle Officer, Aurangabad.
7. Officer-In-Charge, Mufassil Police Station, Aurangabad.
8. Dhananjay Kumar Yadav alias Dharmendra Yadav, S/o Late Faguni Yadav,
R/o village Kushi, P.S. Muffasil, District Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to GA-10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-09-2024
Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the
learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
20.07.2024
, passed by the respondent Circle Officer,
Aurangabad, whereby and whereunder the Circle Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13692 of 2024 dt.17-09-2024
Aurangabad has been pleased to pass an order of status quo in
relation to the land, which is the subject matter of the Title Suit
No. 33 of 2024, filed by the private respondent and others.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that
the land, in question, was purchased by the petitioners from one
Keshar Yadav and Bisheshar Yadav way back in the year 2009
and since then, they have been coming in peaceful possession.
Having purchased the land, the petitioners applied for
mutation, which was allowed in their favour and the petitioners
have been paying the revenue rent regularly with effect from the
date of mutation. It is further contended that while the
petitioners have been coming in possession of the land, in the
meantime, the private respondent no. 11 started creating
hindrances and filed several representation before the State
officials in order to create problem in the peaceful enjoyment of
the petitioners. Learned Advocate for the petitioners also
contended that Title Suit No. 33 of 2024 has also been instituted
by the private respondent and others for cancellation of the sale
deeds executed by the ancestors of the private respondent in
favour of the petitioners.
4. Irrespective of the aforenoted facts as also the Title
Suit is pending before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13692 of 2024 dt.17-09-2024
when the private respondent has filed an application before the
Circle Officer, the Circle Officer had passed the impugned order
granting status quo.
5. Learned Advocate for the State, at this juncture,
would submit that since the petitioner have been coming in
peaceful possession over the land, in question, any status quo
will certainly protect the interest of the petitioners.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners countering the
submission thus, further contended that in the garb of status quo
order, the Circle Officer, Aurangabad is not allowing the
petitioners to cultivate the land, in question and making
construction over it.
7. This Court is unable to accept the submission of the
learned Advocate for the petitioners in absence of any specific
order of prohibition to cultivate or otherwise. Once the matter is
pending before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, with
respect to the land, in question, the Circle Officer has no
authority to pass any order of restrainment against any person,
who is having, prima facie, right, title, interest, in his favour and
is in possession of the land. It is the Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction who shall look into the matter and pass appropriate
order, if any dispute has been raised and sub judice therein.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13692 of 2024 dt.17-09-2024
8. In view of the aforesaid observation, the present
writ petition stands disposed off.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.09.2024
Transmission Date NA
