PATNA, India, Oct. 24 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Sept. 25:

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to provide adequate security and protection in regard to the land owned and possessed by the petitioner having exclusive right, title and interest over the said land and property. In paragraph no. 1, it has also been submitted that one representation dated 01.12.2020 is pending before respondent no. 3 who is sitting over the matter for reasons best known to the respondent.

02. Perusal of representation dated 01.12.2020 shows the said representation was given to the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas with prayer to take action against the S.H.O., Bikramganj Police Station and to ensure handing over the paddy crop which was kept by the accused persons and for further ensuring that the petitioner was allowed to cut the paddy crop and take the produce to his possession. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant thereto by the orders of the learned A.C.J.M.-1st, Bikramganj the paddy crop which was kept in the police station has been handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner also harvested the remaining crop.

03. I am unable to understand after so many years what remains in the matter when the allegation was made against certain persons and prayer was made to ensure handing over of the paddy crop to the petitioner of the land claimed by the petitioner and the same was done. Hence, the representation has been acted upon and nothing remains in the matter.

04. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that thereafter on complaint of this petitioner, Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 39 of 2022 under Section 147, 149, 341, 342, 323, 379, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against Babban Singh and others. Therefore the grievances of the petitioner stands redressed. If the petitioner is having any grievances against the private respondent he could take the course of law in case there is any dispute over title and ownership of the land.

05. This contention has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who submits that the petitioner has won the title suit still the private respondents are obstructing cropping of his land and its harvesting.

06. From the submission made on behalf of the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner is aggrieved by the acts of private respondents and also the official respondents in helping the private respondents so far as harvesting of crop is concerned. But there could not be any standing order to the State authorities to provide 24 x 7 protection for 365 days of the year in favour of the petitioner. Still, the State authorities are duty bound to protect the lawful possession of the property of each citizen including this petitioner. If any infringement is reported, the State authorities are duty bound to take action. If in future, the petitioner is aggrieved by infringement of any of his rights whether of body or property, he may approach the State authorities and the State authorities are directed to act upon such complaints in accordance with law.

07. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.