Mahesh Khirwal vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Hon''ble Prakash Tatia, Chief Justice

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Grievance of the petitioner is against the part of the order dated 16th November, 2006 as well as revisional order dated 3rd May, 2007. By order dated 26th November, 2006, the proceeding u/s 144 Criminal Procedure Code was dropped and it was ordered that the possession may be handed over to the opposite party i.e., the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petitioner preferred a revision petition being Criminal Revision no. 233 of 2006 in the court of Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, which was dismissed by the revisional court and hence this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that both the courts below committed serious error of law in handing over possession to the respondents and learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the various documents and also submitted that even the alleged Power of Attorney appears to be forged one, which has been set up by the respondents before the first court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the neighbours lodged a complaint for demolition of house because the house in question was in dilapidated condition, wherein the authority found that the writ petitioner was in possession since his grand father''s time.

I have perused the reasons given by both the courts below as well as perused the contents of the documents. On the face of it, it is clear that a proceeding u/s 144 Criminal Procedure Code was initiated, which itself was an abuse of process of court because it was a case between the two parties with respect to immoveable properties for which proper remedy was of filing the suit. Admittedly, the suit is pending and that suit was filed by the respondents prior to initiation of this proceeding, as per the writ petitioner himself.

In writ jurisdiction, I do not find any reason to interfere in such order where neither the right, title or interest in the property can be decided by the court and proper remedy is determination of the issues by the competent court of law, for which suit is pending. It is relevant to mention here that the suit is pending since 2005. In that situation, the police authorities, even should not have acted in the manner in which the police acted and locked the premises which is already inhabited. In view of the above reason also, learned counsel for the writ petitioner rightly did not challenge the dropping of the proceedings.

Thus the writ petition, having no merit, is dismissed.