Patna High CourtCR. WJC/114/2019dismissed

Ranjana Singh v. The State Of Bihar Through Home Commissioner, Bihar And ORS

2019-01-22Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.114 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year- Thana- District- ====================================================== Ranjana Singh wife of sri Ramji Singh Resident of Village- Mahamadpur P.S.- PhulwariSharif, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Home Commissioner, Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Katihar

3. Deputy Magistrate and Land Reforms Development Department, Katihar

4. The Circle officer, Katihar Anchal, Katihar

5. Sub-Divisional Officer,Katihar

6. Amin and Registrar of Registry Office, Katihar

7. Superintendent of Police, Katihar

8. Gramin Superintentendent of Police, Katihar

9. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Katihar

10. Officer Incharge Katihar Police Station, Katihar

11. Anamika Devi wife of Uday Shankar Singh, Resident of Village-Madhepura, P.O., P.S. and District - Katihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to evict respondent

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.114 of 2019 dt.22-01-2019 2/3 no.11, namely, Anamika Devi wife of Uday Shankar Singh from the house situated at Plot No. 317 and 334 of Khata No. 59, Thana No. 99, Tauzi No.1238 and Mauza- Madhepura, P.S. Katihar, District- Katihar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.11 had sold the said plot to the petitioner on 10.08.2011 by executing a registered deed. However, she is forcefully occupying the house since last five years. He submitted that all the valid documents of the house of the plot is in the name of the petitioner, but the respondent no.11 is not evicting the premises in spite of several requests made by the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the writ petition is totally misconceived. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature for which a remedy would lie before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. He contended that a writ petition would not be maintainable in case of dispute between the two private parties.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the State. A suit and not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the remedy for declaration of right, title

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.114 of 2019 dt.22-01-2019 3/3 and possession over a plot.

6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. It is dismissed accordingly. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md. S/SKSuman.

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 28.01.2019 Transmission Date 28.01.2019