AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 28-07-2026 Heard Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners duly assisted by Ms. Ritika Rani, learned counsel, Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Shrinandan Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties duly assisted by Mr. Mukund Kumar, learned counsel.
This application has been preferred assailing the order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 785 of 2015, whereby the revision application so preferred by the petitioners has been disposed of with observation that findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna in Misc. Case No. 1035 of 2015 under order dated 21.11.2015 in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. with respect to possession of the petitioners cannot be observed under such aforesaid proceeding of 144 Cr.P.C.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Patna, whereby he has refused to record a finding favouring petition or with respect to possession, in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., the instant application has been preferred.
The main premise on which the learned counsel for the petitioners raised his argument is Annexure 6, which is the “no objection” letter issued by the Peoples’ Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd., in favour of the petitioner No. 1, wherein at the request of Late Bimla Devi, mother of the 3/5 petitioner no. 1, the aforesaid Society issued no objection certificate in the following words :-
“Further, Society has no objection in sanction of residential house building Plan on the aforesaid plot of land K1-36 held by Smt. Rupam Singh from the Patna Municipal Corporation under the provision of present Building Bye-Laws of the Corporation.”
Whereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna
Sadar, vide order dated 21.11.2015 passed in Misc. Case No. 1035 (M) of 2015, while disposing of the said application has given observation in the following words :-
“अभभलेख पर उपलबध कागजात जो द्भवतीय पक दारा नयायालय मे प्रसतुत भकया गया है, उसमे मुखय रप से श्रीमती भवमला देवी दारा शशमतश रपम भसंह के पक मे भनषपाभदत भनबंभधत केवाला की छायाप्रभत, अपने भपता से प्रापत बैक चेक की छायाप्रभत (तीन फदर मे) एवं वभररत भूखणड के संबंध मे शशमतश रपम भसंह दारा अपने पुत्र/पुत्री को भपपुलस को-ऑपरेभटव हाउभसंग कंसट्रकशन सोसाईटी मे नोभमनी बनाने हेतु भदये गये आवेदन की छायाप्रभत एवं सोसाईटी दारा भनगरत, नोभमनी प्रमार-पत्र की छायाप्रभत, भबजली भबल जो द्भवतीय पक शशमतश रपम भसंह, पभत-सुरेनद्र भसंह, के-36 हनुमान नगर के नौम से भनगरत है, की छायाप्रभत एवं सोसाईटी दारा भनगरत लगान रसीद की छायाप्रभत नयायालय मे दाभखल भकया गया है, जबभक प्रथम पक के दारा अपने केस के प्रमार मे कोई भी भनबंभधत दसतावेज अपने दावे के संबंध मे नयायालय मे प्रसतुत नहीं भकया गया है। भसफर आवेदन के माधयम से ही अपने भपता दारा शशमतश रपम भसंह को भदये गये पैसे से क्रय की गई भूभम की बात को अंभकत भकया गया है, भजसके आधार पर प्रथम पक के दावा पर भवचार करना उभचत प्रतीत नहीं होता है, जबभक द्भवतीय पक अपने दावे के संबंध मे सभी तरह के साकय प्रमार सवरप दाभखल भकये है, भजससे भववाभदत भूभम पर इनका दावा उभचत प्रतीत होता है। उकत भसथभत मे प्रथम पक के आवेदन को असवीकृत करते हुए वाद की कायरवाही समापत की जाती है। संबंभधत थाना को सूभचत करे।”
Against the said order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna, Sadar, the O.P. No. 2 preferred the Criminal Revision No. 785 of 2015 before the learned District and
Sessions Judge, Patna which was disposed off by him under order dated 11.03.2016 in the following words :-
“Since finding of genuineness of the claim or possession cannot be recorded in a proceeding U/s 144 Cr.P.C., the same is bad in law and shall not affect the future right of the parties.”
The learned senior counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that the petitioners, on the strength of order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar and no objection letter issued by the aforesaid construction society, has sought possession and title over the aforesaid piece of land/property which he is legally not entitled to. The no objection letter issued by the Peoples’ Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd is merely a procedural formality that too at the request of Late Bimla Devi, who is the sole owner of the said property and he further points out that proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. can never be relied upon for ascertaining one’s right or claim over any piece of property. The learned District & Sessions Judge has rightly disposed off the application filed by the O.P. No. 2 observing that with respect to possession, no mention could be made in the order of revision.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also submits that this application has practically become infructuous as the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar, in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. has life of sixty days only and thereafter, it loses its efficacy and validity. Now, this petition is pending only for the purpose of academic discussion and nothing else could be decided herein.
After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and in view of the aforesaid observation made hereinabove, this Court does not find any merit in this application for the present and as such this application is disposed off.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
saurabh.kr/ prakash-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 29.07.2026 |
| Transmission Date | 29.07.2026 |