BAL VIKAS VIDYLY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the town of Sasaram across the road and infront of the tomb of the famous Afghan king Shershah is located a school known as Bal Vikas Vidyalaya- petitioner No. 1 run by a Society registered under the societies Registration Act. Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director and the petitioner No. 3 the Principal of the school. The respondents include certain government officials, who inspite of an order of a competent Court for maintenance of status quo in a suit in between the parties raided the school on the morning of 8th February 1996, demolished the boundary wall and ransacked the school building. The petitioners are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court and seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The school sponsored by the Lions Club was tarted on 14th January 1976. It was located in a building of the officers' club opposite Shershah tomb with the permission of the Collector. The school claims to have purchased 1 Bigha, 1 Katha, 9 Dhurs of land appertaining to municipal survey plot Nos. 38,39 and 40 corresponding to plot No. 1 of C.S. Khata No. 12. The purchase was made by sale deed dated 26-2-81. The land was being used by the school as play ground and the club building and the adjoining land given by the Collector in 1975 was being used as school building. C.S. plot No. 1 from which municipal survey plot Nos. 38,39 and 40 had been carved out measured more than 8 acres. The Archaeological Survey of India started claiming title and right - over the lands and the club building in which the school was running. The interference became so much pronounced that the petitioners filed TS. No. 164/82 in the Court of Subordinate Judge-1, Sasaram, challenging such interference and for a declaration that the Archaeological Survey of India had no title, claim or right over the disputed land. The Union of India, the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India and the State of Bihar through the Collector were parties to the suit. On an application filed by the plaintiffs the learned Subordinate Judge by an order dated 21-10-82 directed the parties to maintain status quo on the suit land including the building till the disposal of the suit. The defendants-Union of India and others being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 52/26 of 1982-86 and the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge by order dated 13-8-87 (An- nexure-2) dismissed the appeal. Since the said order was not challenged before the High Court it had attained finality. However, on account of non-cooperative attitude of the Archaeological Survey of India the suit has not been disposed of uptill now. After the aforesaid order for maintenance of status quo the school management erected a boundary wall for the safety and security of the students in view of the worsening law and order situation in the town. A land encroachment proceeding vide'land encroachment case No. 26 of 1983-84 was initiated by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms which was decided against the school authorities in a hurry. On appeal the Collector remanded the matter for fresh hearing in accordance with law. Despite repeated requests made by the school authorities to the D.C.L.R. to deliver the judgment, no order was passed nor any date the intimated or notified on which date judgment would be given. That all of a sudden on 8-2-96 at 7.30 in the morning the respondents-officials namely the District Development officer (respondent No. 6), the Sub- divisional Officer (respondent No. 7), the Deputy Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 9) and the officer-in- charge of Sasaram town police station came to the school along with fifty armed police men and fifty labourers. The police party resorted to firing in air to scare the people and thereafter under the orders of the officers present the entire boundary, wall was demolished and the school building was completely ransacked. The goods materials, documents and blackboards were all thrown out and they put their seal on each room of the school and also seized the Trekker Vehicle parked there. The petitioners thereafter filed a petition in the title suit for appointing of a Pleader Commissioner. The Court allowed the prayer by order dated 9-2-96 (Annexure-4) despite the opposition by the State officials and appointed a Pleader Commissioner to prepare the inventory. The district officials did not allow the Pleader Commissioner to go on the spot to prepare the inventory and instead filed an application before the Trial Court that they would move the High Court against the said order. It is not in dispute that Civil Revision No. 448 of 19% against the said order has been filed and is pending in the High Court. The petitioners apprehending that they may not gel proper relief at the district level as the district officials were themselves involved in the matter had moved this Court under the compelling circumstances mentioned above for the reliefs aforementioned in the interest of justice as also in the interest of 1300 students of the school.

(3.) The application has been contested by the respondents by filing two counter affidavits one sworn by the D.C.L.R. Sasaram, on being authorised by the Collector to do so and another on behalf of the Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of Tndia (respondent No. 10). The respondents have denied the allegations contained in the writ application. They deny the title of the plaintiffs to the suit land. They also deny the petitioners' case that they had violated Court's order regarding maintenance of status quo. It is contended that the encroachment were removed while implementing an order passed in a land encroachment proceeding against the school authorities from over the land which were not included in the suit land involved in the civil suit in between the parties. In other words the land from which encroachments had been removed was not the subject matter of the title suit between the parties. It is contended that in execution of the order passed in the encroachment proceeding the articles removed were kept in safe custody under orders of the Court in the premises of the Archaeological Department. It is also claimed that the petitioners have already preferred an appeal before the Collector of the district against the order passed under the provisions of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. The contention is that the petitioners having preferred an appeal before the appellate authority could not invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for similar reliefs. The petitioners in their rejoinder to the counter affidavit denied some of the statements made in the counter affidavit. They have relied upon some of the documents of the respondents as evidence to prove their acknowledgment that the school building was on the disputed land. In that connection they have referred to an application filed by the plaintiff before the learned Sub-Judge in the title suit for permission to carry out necessary repairs of the school building and have also referred to a rejoinder filed by the Archaeological Survey of India stating that the said building in the suit i.e. the "school" needs no repairs. The petitioners have also referred to the fact that after the trial Court refused the permission they made a similar prayer vide Misc. case No. 52/82 before the District Judge and the Addl. District Judge to whom the matter was transferred allowed the prayer vide order dated 11-6-84 (An- nexure-9 series).