Jharkhand High Court
Nejam Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 April, 2023
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 1649 of 2022
Nejam Ansari, aged about 61 yrs., S/o Late Zaim Ansari, R/o
Village Mahavir Mohalla (Behind Koderma Post Office), P.O. &
P.S. Koderma, District Koderma, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O.+P.S.+District -
Koderma
3. Superintendent of Police, Koderma, P.O.+P.S.+District - Koderma
4. Circle Officer, Koderma, P.O.+P.S.+District - Koderma
5. District Sub registrar cum Public Information Officer, Koderma,
P.O.+P.S.+District - Koderma
6. Officer In Charge of Koderma Police Station, P.O.+P.S.+District
- Koderma
7. Mustafa Miya, S/o Late Abdul Rahman, R/o Village Baharwatand,
P.O.+P.S.+District - Koderma
8. Abdul Karim, S/o Late Mohammad Mian, R/o Asnabad, Ward No.
06, Jhumari Telaiya Nagar Parisad, P.O.Karma, P.S. Telaiya,
District Koderma ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 7 & 8 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate : Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate
---
09/19.04.2023
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"for issuance of writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) and particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma whereby and whereunder, he has stayed the registration of sale & purchase and mutation of the land and further not to issue the rent receipt of the Khata No. 11, Plot No. 180 and others, vide letter no. 1471 dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure -8), Henceforth the Respondent no. 2 has erroneously exercised his power beyond jurisdiction.
And/or Further be pleased to pass appropriate Order(s)/direction restraining not to give effect of the operation of order as passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma referred above.
And/or The petitioners further pray to pass any other order(s) direction(s)/writ(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case for doing conscionable justice."2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that title suit is pending between the petitioner and the private respondents and prayer for injunction has been rejected vide order dated 23.05.2022. The private respondents are the plaintiffs in the title suit.
4. However, during the pendency of the title suit, an order dated 19.08.2021 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma on the basis of complaint made by the private respondents, virtually passing an order of injunction by restraining the petitioner from entering into any sale-deed or taking any steps regarding mutation although it was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that the title suit is pending. The learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is wholly without jurisdiction, in as much as, the plaintiffs could have move the civil court for seeking interim relief.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has submitted that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed in order to prevent law and order problem and to maintain peace between the parties. However, the learned counsel is not in a position to justify the continuation of the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure-8). It is further not in dispute that the prayer for injunction, as prayed for by the private respondents in the title suit, has been rejected vide order dated 23.05.2022 i.e after passing of the impugned order dated 19.08.2021.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the title suit was pending between the petitioner and the private respondents, in which the private respondents are the plaintiffs. It further appears that the private respondents had moved the court below in the original Suit No. 191/2020/122/2018 for grant of injunction and the learned court below has refused to grant injunction vide order dated 23.05.2022.
7. The petition for injunction was filed on 16.11.2018 and during the pendency of the petition for injunction, the private respondents had moved the Deputy Commissioner who passed the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 restraining the petitioner from registering any sale 3 deed in connection with the property involved in this case and also restrained from proceeding for mutation.
8. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 restraining the petitioner from entering into any sale deed and dealing with the property is wholly without jurisdiction and any such relief could have been granted only by the concerned court, where title suit was pending. Learned counsel for the respondent-State is not in a position to defend the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner. Admittedly the prayer for injunction has also been rejected by the learned court vide order dated 23.05.2022. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 is hereby set-aside. However, it will be open to the parties to take further steps in the pending title suit in accordance with law.
9. At this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the prayer portion at para-1 and also in synopsis and other places in the writ petition, the plot number has been wrongly mentioned as Plot No. 108 in place of Plot No. 180. He seeks permission to carry out the typographical correction.
10. Learned counsel for the private respondents does not dispute that the correct plot no is 180 and not 108.
11. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer portion and other portion of the writ petition and also in synopsis with regard to the plot number in view of para 9 above, in red ink during the course of the day.
12. This writ petition is hereby disposed of.
13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul