Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9109 of 2008 Om Prakash Pathak, son o Shyam Sundar Pathak at Mehdasahpur, Ps Cheriyabariarpur, District Begusarai, at present Karpardaz of Jitendra Narayan at Begusarai, PS and District Begusarai – Petitioner. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar, (2) The Collector, Begusarai. (3) The Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Begusarai. (4) The Circle Officer, Sadar, Begusarai. (5) The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Begusarai Municipality – Respondents. with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.768 of 2009 Sri Rajiv Kumar Agrawal, son of Late Arvind Kumar Agrawal, Mohalla Mungeriganj, PS Begusarai Sadar, Dist. Begusarai. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar. (2) The Dist. Magistrate cum Collector, Begusarai. (3) Nagar Parishad Begusarai through Special Officer cum Executive Officer, Begusarai. (4) Special Officer cum Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Begusarai. (5) Subdivisional Magistrate, Sadar, Begusarai. (6) Sri Rabindra Narain Agrawal, son of Late Bishundeo Narain Agrawal, Mohalla Mungeriganj, PS and District Begusarai. (7) Sri Jitendra Narain Agrawal, son of Late Rabindra Narain Agrawal, Mohalla Mungeriganj, PS and District Begusarai – Respondents. … For the petitioner in both the writ petitions: Mr. Chitranjan Singh, Senior Advocate and Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, AC to AAG 15. For the intervener: Mr. Dhrub Narain, Senior Advocate and Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate. For respondent no.3, 4 and 5 in CWJC No.9109/2008: Mr. Jitendra Singh, Senior Advocate and Mr. Tej Pratap Singh and Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, Advocates. For respondent no.7 in CWJC No. 768/2009: Mr. Mrigank Mauli and Mr. Samir Kumar, Advocates. 6 30-1-2012 This matter relates to a proceeding initiated under section 336 of the Municipal Act by which there is an order to demolish an old building standing on Khesra nos. 1331 and 1334 located in the district of Begusarai spreading over an area of 7kathas after holding that the building is in a dilapidated condition 2 and must be demolished. Notices were issued to the tenants to file objections. The objections filed by the tenants were referred by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Begusarai to the District Magistrate for consideration and direction. This order is contained in Annexure 9, dated 13.5.2008 which is under challenge. Before adverting to the sequences of events which led to the issuance of Annexure 9, it is essential to state the relationships between the parties and refer to the title regarding the property which is under dispute. Rai Bahadur Kharag Narain acquired large property in 1920 and in the early 1930‟s. On partition from his brother Dr. Bishundeo Narain in the year 1950, Khesra nos. 1331 and 1334 fell in the share of Bishundeo Narain. Bishundeo Narain had two sons and one daughter, namely, Ravindra Narain and Arvind Narain. Ravindra Narain (respondent no.6 in CWJC No. 768/2009) had one son Jitendra Narain and a daughter Minakshi Rani. Late Arvind Narain had two sons, Sanjiv and Rajiv Agrawal Narain. Two partition suits were filed in which Ravindra Narain, father of Jitendra Narain and Arvind Kumar were parties which were numbered das T.P.S. Nos. 43/1972 and 44/1972. In these two partition suits the property in dispute in this case, were not included in the schedule of lands, as it was the exclusive property of Bishundeo Narain allotted to him vide Partition Suit No. 60/1966. Bishundeo Narain before his death, executed a document in the nature of Will / Trust for the benefits of his grand sons and grand daughters. Ravindra Narain and Arvind Kumar 3 were the trustees / executor of the said Will cum Trust. This the Will cum Trust was probated vide Probate Case No. 35/1980 and in the said probate case father of Rajiv Kumar Agrawal had admitted that the property was the exclusive property of Late Bishundeo Narain which was part of the Will cum Trust. In 1993 Arvind Kumar, father of Rajiv Kumar Agrawal died. Before his death he executed a Will which did not deal with the properties in question. Rajiv Kumar Agrawal filed Partition Title Suit No. 188/1997 in which he included this property as well. The said partition suit was dismissed. On 11.9.1999 the trust was determined and intimated to the public at large through the local news paper. As per the determination of the Will, the properties of the trust in Khesra nos. 1331 and 1334 were divided amongst the beneficiaries. Jitendra Narain received 35% (equivalent to 4 kathas, 4 dhurs and 14 dhurkis) which included four shops in south, two shops on the east and six shops in the west. Sanjiv Kumar received the balance 3 kathas and 10 dhurkis. Rajiv Kumar Agrawal along with Minakshi Rani got share in Khesra nos. 1332, 1560, 1561 and 1562, which is also a market and is just across the road to the market situated at Khesra nos. 1331 and 1334. Sanjiv Kumar challenged the allocation of share to the petitioner and the earlier determination, dated 11.9.1999 by filing Partition Suit No. 188/1997, denying the existence of the Will cum Trust executed by Late Bishundeo Narain. The facts aforesaid are not denied by any of the parties. It would, thus, appear that Jitendra Narain 4 prima facie is the owner and holds the title of the aforesaid two plots. This finding is subject to the title suit filed by the respondent. As far as possession is concerned, his possession is through the tenants who are paying rent to Jitendra Narain. Om Prakash Pathak, petitioner of CWJC No. 9109/2008 describes himself as the Karpardaz of Jitendra Narain. Jitendra Narain who is in Government service and lives in Delhi and as such his affairs are being looked after by Om Prakash Pathak. It has been specifically pleaded that another Karpardaz of Jitendra Narain got a report prepared by registered Civil Engineers regarding the deteriorating condition of the building. On the basis of the aforesaid reports, the petitioner asked the tenants to vacate the premises as it was unfit

Applicable IPC Section: 209

Statute Text:
Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code. False claim in a court of Justice. Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.