ASHISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to provide police protection for cultivating his land detailed in para-4 of the application and further restraining private respondent nos. 6 to 8 from any interference in peaceful cultivating possession of the land.

(2.) Mr. Vishundeo Narayan, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and his family members including proforma respondent nos. 9 to 18 are having right, title, interest and possession over the land detailed in para-4 of the writ petition. Current rent receipts and other documents would show that they are coming in possession over the property continuously since long. Partition Suit No. 29 of 1996 was also decreed by judgment and decree dtd. 27/2/2000 against which Appeal No. 14 of 2000 had been filed by petitioner including other family members impleaded as respondent nos. 9 to 18. During pendency of appeal, the petitioner and other family members, who were parties to the suit and appeal, had filed a petition under Sec. 4 C of the Consolidation Act for abatement of the appeal including the original suit itself, which was rejected vide order dtd. 24/12/2008 against which the petitioner and other family members filed Civil Revision before this Court in which order dtd. 24/3/2009 had been passed with direction to the petitioner to file fresh application whereafter the petitioner filed a fresh application before the Appellate Court vide Appeal No. 14 of 2000 and the original suit itself has been abated under Sec. 4 C of the Consolidation Act and no suit is pending in the eyes of law before Civil Court, Muzaffarpur. He contended that the private respondent nos. 6 to 8 with the help of anti- social elements are creating hindrance in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the land in question.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in law as the petitioner is raising a private dispute relating to property which is beyond the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He contended that there is no pleading that any statutory authority, who was supposed to perform statutory duty had failed in discharge of his duty and, thus, no mandamus can be issued against any official respondent.