Jharkhand High Court
Masonic Lodge vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 16 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(49)BLJR1246, AIR 2001 JHARKHAND 1, 2001 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 107, 2001 (2) BLJR 1246, 2001 BLJR 2 1246
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Govt. Pleader No. 1 for the respondents and with their consent this application is disposed of at this stage.
Reference may be made to the order dated 10.1.2001 passed in this application which reads as under :--
"No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned G.P. 1 is not in a position to satisfy this Court as to under what authority of law the Administration has put a lock in the premises.
G.P. 1 prays for three days more time to file counter affidavit. Put up this case on 15.1.2001 within first five cases. It is made clear that if it is found that the action of the Administration is highly arbitrary and illegal then appropriate order for payment of compensation shall also be passed against them."
2. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the authority of the respondents, namely, the District Administration of Dhanbad who have forcibly taken possession of the Masonic Lodge by putting lock and seal on 19.11.2000 and further for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to forthwith unlock the premises of Masonic Lodge.
3. Petitioner's case, inter alia, is that the building premises comprised within Plot No. 202 under Khata No. 136 of Mouja Hirapur, Dist. Dhanbad measuring an area of 1.60 acres along with other structures have been in possession of the Masonic Lodge since 1919. It is stated that the Masonic Lodge was constituted by the Grand Lodge of England, Scotland and Ireland during the British rule in India and was under the local jurisdiction of District Grand Lodge of Bengal. After independence, the Grand Lodge of India was constituted in the year, 1961 and at present the Masonic Lodge at Dhanbad has been renumbered as Dhanbad Lodge 95 G.L.I. It is stated that the building aforesaid commonly known as Misonic temple was constructed sometimes in the year, 1920 and the same was run and administered by Worship Master ever since 1918. Different worship masters are being elected. It is stated that in 1981 a report was submitted by the Anchal Adhikari informing the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad that the Masonic Lodge premises is an unclaimed property and, therefore, the possession thereof can be taken under Rule 358 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules. On the basis of the said report the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad initiated a proceeding being M.R. case No. 2/81 for declaring the same as an unclaimed property. A notice to that effect was also published in the daily newspaper. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared and filed its claim before the Deputy Commissioner. Further, the other persons including one Kali Prasad Singh also filed a petition claiming the said property. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 5.8.1983, held that the land and building belongs to Masonic Lodge and accordingly the property was released in favour of Masonic Lodge and a further direction was issued for fixation of rent in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, rent fixation proceeding was initiated and rent was fixed in favour of the petitioner by order dated 14.7.1992 and since then the petitioner has been paying rent to the State of Jharkhand Bihar. It appears that against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the claimant, namely, Kali prasad Singh filed a writ application being CWJC No. 1318/83(R) which was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.8.1989 with liberty to said Kali Prasad Singh to institute a Civil Suit. Said Kali Prasad Singh, after lapse of several years, instituted title suit No. 21/97 claiming relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession and injunction which is pending. Petitioner's case is that it has been running a school in the name and style of Little Star School and also a Homeopathic Charitable Dispensary in a part of the said premises. Suddenly on 19.11.2000 the Halka Karmachari with police force came and forcibly put lock on the main gate and main doors of the premises of the Masonic Lodge and put name plate of 'Revenue Court' of Halka No. 3, Dhanbad circle.
4. This writ application was placed for admission on 3.1.2001 and this Court directed G.P. I to seek instruction and file counter affidavit. On 10.1.2001 the matter was again placed and the order, quoted herein above, was passed by this Court. Today learned G.P. I submitted that he has drafted the counter affidavit on the basis of the written instruction sent by the respondents under the signatures of the respondents including the G.P. of Dhanbad. In the counter affidavit the main grounds for locking the premises, taken by the respondents is that the earlier order passed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad was not legal and valid. In the counter affidavit the respondents have admitted all the facts stated in the writ application but their case is that since no injunction has been granted by the Civil Court where the title suit filed by said Kali Prasad Singh is pending, the office of Halka Karmachari has been opened in the aforesaid building. For better appreciation para 34 of the counter affidavit is quoted hereinbelow:--
"That with regard to the statements made in paras 18 to 26 of the writ petition, it is stated that the avernments made therein are not correct."
It is submitted that in view of the fact that it was found that the order declaring title to the property was inadvertently and illegally made and also that the property belongs to the State of Jharkhand and further that no order for injunction restraining the defendants was passed, the possession of the land was taken by these respondents on 18.11.2000, in order to utilise the premises as the office of the Halka Karmachari."
5. From the pleadings of the parties the undisputed facts which emerge are that the property in question known as Masonic Lodge is being run by the worship Masters since 1919. In 1981 on a report of the Halka Karmachari a proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner being Misc. Case No. 2/81. The proceeding was initiated on the basis of the report that the Masonic Lodge is an unclaimed property. The petitioner contented the said proceeding stating, inter alia, that the property belongs to Masonic Lodge. The then Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad disposed of the said proceeding in favour of the peti- tioner in terms of order dated 5.3.1983. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :--
"I have gone through the papers filed by claimant no. 1. From the documents it is established that the land and building existing on plot no. 202 belongs to Masonic Lodge. The land was, however, gifted by Raja Shiva Prasad Singh of Jharia Raj. A condition was laid down in the gift that the Masonic Lodge shall not have any right to alienate the land not to use it for any other purpose. From the copy of list of members it however, appears that the members were of Christian Community. The bond for temporary release of the building has been executed by the present officers and members of the Masonic Lodge. The fact as to whether these persons are, the genuine members of the lodge or not, has not been challenged by any other claimant of the property and as such the claim of lodge, Dhanbad represented by A.R. Das Gupta, worshipful Master of the lodge and other principal officers of the lodge, appears to be bona fide although I find that no step was taken to get rent fixed by Govt. of Bihar who has stepped into the shoes pf Ex-Zamindar of Jharia consequent upon abolition of Zamindaries, as required under Section 139 of the CNT Act applicable for Kabil Lagan be-lagan Lands'.
The plea of Sri K.P. Singh that the land is in khas possession of ex-landlord and that one member of the Jharia Raj had constructed the Masonic Lodge is not tenable. If at all, the land was in khas possession of ex-landlord it was open for him to get rent fixed under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the B.L.R. Act consequent upon abolition of Zamindari on the basis of return filed by Zamindar concerned. Sri K.P. Singh has not produced any copy of return nor any document to show that rent was fixed for this land in question under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the B.L.R. Act. No proof whatsoever, has been given in support of his contention that the building of Masonic Lodge was constructed by any member of the Jharia Raj. The claim of Sri K.P. Singh, of Rajhari Jharia is seemingly baseless and it cannot, therefore, be accepted as genuine.
Since the claim of Sri A.R. Das Gupta worshipful Master of 'lodge Dhanbad' over the property known as 'Masonic Lodge' appears to be guine and bona fide and it is accepted. The lodge premises taken over on 13.10.1981 due to its lying abandant as unclaimed property for certain period is ordered to be released to the Masonic Lodge, Dhanbad. A case for fixation of rent for the land in question should be started immediately by the Anchal Adhikari, Dhanbad and rent as may be finally fixed by the District authority should be realised from the lodge with effect from the date of vesting. Send a copy of this order to A.C/Anchal Adhikari, Dhanbad for necessary action."
6. It is also undisputed fact that on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner rent fixation proceeding was initiated in the year, 1992 and rent was fixed in favour of the petitioner in terms of order dt. 14.7.1992 passed by the additional Collector, Dhanbad. Since then the petitioner has been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The petitioner is also paying other rents and taxes to Dhanbad Municipality. Photocopies of the rent receipts granted by the State of Bihar and the Dhanbad Municipality have been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ application. It is also admitted fact that against the order passed by the then Deputy Commissioner, one of the objectors, namely, Kali Prasad Singh filed CWJC No. 1318/83 which was dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this Court giving liberty to the writ petitioner to move the Civil Court. It is worth to mention here that the order passed by the then Deputy Commissioner was never challenged by the State. It is also worth not disputed that said Kali Prasad Singh filed title suit no. 21/97 in which the State of Bihar, the Deputy Commissioner, Additional collector and the D.C.L.R. have also been impleaded as defendants. It is also not disputed that till date the respondent-State of Jharkhand has not made any prayer before the Sub-judge Ist Court Dhanbad where the title suit is pending for grant of injunction much less prohibitory injunction or any form of injunction nor they have ever claimed the possession of the State of Jharkhand over the property in question. Suddenly on 19.11.2000 the premises was locked by the Administration of the State of Jharkhand and a Revenue Office was opened in the premises.
7. As noticed above, the case of the respondents State of Bihar is that since earlier order passed by the then Deputy Commissioner was illegal and no injunction was granted by the Civil Court in the pending suit, the respondents have taken possession of the property and opened office of Halka Karmachari. Prima facie, therefore the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law. The high handedness of the officers of the District Administration is evident from the fact that even before doing such illegal acts they have not informed the petitioner nor the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why possession of the premises may not be taken by the Administration. The judicial indiscipline prevailing in the District Administration is also evident from the fact that they have not even respected the Civil Court where the suit is pending and even without bringing to the notice of the Civil Court they have committed such mischief.
8. 1 fail to understand as to under what authority of law the respondents, namely, the District Administration, forcibly put a lock in the premises and dispossessed the petitioner by opening a revenue office. The highhandedness of the respondents and misuse and abuse of power for extraneous reasons has exposed them and proved that the authorities are not following the rule of law. The Administrative action must be exercised objectively, rationally, fairly and non-arbitrarily. It should not be taken in due haste disregarding the procedures nor it should be ultra vires the powers conferred by the Statute. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and Ors., 1991 (4) SCC 54.
9. In the case of Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2097, the Apex Court held that it is well settled law in this country that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law.
10. In the case of Samir Sobha Sanyal v. Tracks Trade Private Ltd. and Ors., 1996 (4) S1 CC 144, the Apex Court in similar circumstance observed as under:--
"Even with regard to that we are not impressed with the same. Since the letter of the law should be strictly adhered to, we find that high-handed action taken by respondents 2 and 3 and 4 in having the appellant dispossessed without due process of law, cannot be overlooked nor condoned. The Court cannot blink at their unlawful conduct to dispossess the appellant from the demised property and would say that the status quo be maintained. If the Court gives acceptance to such high-handed action, there will be no respect for rule of law and unlawful elements would take hold of the due process of law for ransom and it would be a field day for anarchy. Due process of law would be put to ridicule in the estimate of the law abiding citizens and rule of law would remain a mortuary."
11. Having regard to the facts of the case I am fully satisfied that the action of the respondents was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified inasmuch as they have no authority under the law to forcefully dispossess the petitioner from the property in question. In such circumstance, the respondents are liable to pay compensation and damages to the petitioner for deprivation of property, loss, damages, mental pain and agony.
12. For all these reasons I allow this application by passing the followings order
(i) the respondents/District Administration immediately and forthwith within 24 hours shall unlock the premises of Masonic Lodge and hand over the possession of the same to the petitioner.
(ii) The respondents-State of Jharkhand shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(twenty five thousand) to the petitioner by way of compensation for the loss, damages and mischief committed by them with the property in question by dispossessing the petitioner from the said property.
(iii) If the amount of compensation is not paid within two weeks from today the petitioner shall be entitled to execute this order as if it is a decree of a Court of law. Let a copy of this order be immediately communicated by fax by the Registrar of this Court to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.
13. Writ petition allowed.