SUSHILA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of 31 writ petitions is before this court as a result of the unfortunate insistence by the State Government to achieve its desired objective through means which are quite foreign to the system of law.

(2.) THREE quarters of a century ago the Privy Council in Midnapur Zamindari Company Limited V/s. Naresh Narain Rai, AIR 1924 Privy Council 144 made the following observation: "In India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a court." This succinct statement of the legal position in this country, in contradistinction to the position in English law, was expressly approved by the Supreme Court in Yashwant Singh V/s. Jagdish Singh, AIR 1968 S.C. 620. In Yashwant Singh, the Supreme Court expressely approved the Privy Council decision in Midnapur Zamindari Company and the decisions of the Bombay and Allahabad High Courts in K.K. Verma V/s. Narain Das C. Malkani, AIR 1954 Bombay 358 and in Yar Mohammad V/s. Laxmi Das, AIR 1959 Allahabad 1. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Krishna Ram Mahale V/s. Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 S.C. 2097 when it observed as follows: "It is a 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."

(3.) HOWEVER at the turn of the century the State Government seems to think otherwise. It seems to take the stand that it would be sufficient if the Government was satisfied that the title in the land vested in it and then it would be open for it to evict the occupants of the land and the buildings constructed thereon, if necessary by use of force, in order to resume its possession. Leaving aside a. suit before a civil court, which of late has acquired a reputation for delay, even proceedings of a summary nature under various relevant enactments seem to be considered as being too dilatory to suit the convenience and objective of the State Government in getting the disputed premises vacated from their present occupants. And hence, it seems that the State Government can think of no other way but to get the disputed premises vacated only by use of force. It is the refusal of the State Government to follow the due course of law and its insistence to resume possession of a large area of land, having numerous buildings and structures, by evicting their occupants by use of executive force that is at the crux of the dispute in this batch of cases.