Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3059 of 1997. In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. i) Prahalad Dubey ii) Rama Shankar Dubey. iii) Gauri Shankar Dubey All sons of Late Raj Kumar Dubey. iv) Ashmani Devi. v) Binda Devi. vi) Bidya Devi. vii)Mina Devi viii)Suman Devi All daughters of Late Raj Kuar Dubey, resident of Mohall Laskariganj Sonartoli, Sasaram P.S.Sasaram District Rohtas, ..Petitioners. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram 3.Addl.Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram 4.S.D.O., Rohtas, Sasaram 5.C.O. Sasaram Circle, Rohtas, Sasaram 6.Superintendent, Govt. Hospital, Sasaram, District Rohtas. 7.Sasaram Municipality, through its Executive Officer, Sasaram Municipality District Rohtas. 8.Executive Engineer, PWD, Sasaram District Rohtas…. Respondents. ---------------------------------- For the petitioners : Mr.S.S. Dwivedi, Sr.Adv. M/s. Rakesh Chandra, R.K. Dubey and Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, Advs. For the State : Mr. O.P.Agrawal, SC-2. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY. Shivaji Pandey,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the Municipality. 2. As per the petitioner, the original petitioner Raj Kumar Dubey died during the pendency of this writ petition and vide order dated 31st October 2010, his heirs were substituted. 3. The petitioner has made a prayer to command the respondents not to disturb the construction of shopping complex being made by the petitioner and his other co-sharers by creating obstruction 2 abusing the official power and has also prayed that they should be prevented from disturbing the possession of the petitioner over the land in question, in any manner, as title of the petitioner over the disputed land has been declared in favour of petitioner by order of the competent court and also has claimed compensation for the loss and damage caused to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.50,000/ per year from 1989 onwards till date. 4. The facts of the case are that the disputed land of village Chanauthu of C.S. Khata No. 86, C.S. Plot No. 256, Municipal Survey Plot No. 202, measuring an area of 0.58 decimals and at present the disputed area is 29 ½ decimals belonged to one Harun Koiri. In the year 1888, Sasaram Municipality acquired the land and constructed a road connecting Shershah Rauza with the Grand Trunk Road called Mackfarsan road and the same has now renamed as Shershah Tomb Road. During the Cadastral Survey, lands left over from the road were recorded in the name of Sasaram Municipality vide S.C. Plot No. 256 and 257 of village Chanauthu. The ancestors of petitioner namely, Bhagelu Dubey was the temporary settlee by Sasaram Municipality but continued in possession and thereby acquired occupancy right by way of adverse possession. It is undisputed fact that the land in question was of Sasaram Municipality but as the land remained in adverse possession, according to the petitioner, they acquired occupancy right over the land. 5. In the year 1947, Sasaram Municipality filed Title Suit No. 304 of 1947 for declaration of title as well as recovery of possession against Bhagelu Dubey before the Munsif, Sasaram alleging therein title. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground of their having occupancy right in over the aforesaid land and they have acquired 3 absolute right, title and interest over the same, ultimately, the suit was dismissed against the Sasaram Municipality. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, Sasaram Municipality filed an appeal bearing Title Appeal No. 2/30 of 1950-51 which was ultimately heard and disposed by the Sub-ordinate Judge, Sasaram. The Municipality against the aforesaid judgment and decree filed Second Appeal No. 1196 of 1951, this Court vide judgment dated 13th November 1956 dismissed the same. The Court considered every aspect of the mater and has come to the conclusion that the petitioners were in cultivating possession over the land in dispute for about 40 years continuously and without interruption. On the basis of this finding the petitioner was declared to have acquired occupancy right and, accordingly, the Second Appeal was dismissed, vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 6. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the 2nd appeal, Sasaram Municipality started proceeding under the Bihar Land Encroachment Act against sons of Bhagelu Dubey in respect of the aforesaid land and other lands, which was registered as Encroachment Case no. 172 of 1951. However, this proceeding was dropped with the finding that the land was not a public land, rather it belonged to son of Bhagelu Dubey as they have acquired title over the same. 7. In the year 1958, the State of Bihar in order to widen the Shershah Tomb Road and to create its flanks, made acquisition of the land from both sides and the road and acquired 2.5 decimals of land from plot no.256, 23 decimals from plot no.318, 2.5 decimals of plot no.230 23 decimals of plot no. 257 and 22.5 decimals of plot no. 254. Accordingly, the award was prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer in the name of 4 sons of Bhagelu Dubey. The Sasaram Municipality filed an objection claiming ownership over the land and claimed that compensation of the acquired land should be paid to the Municipality. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the dispute under sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court and the matter was contested between the parties. Ultimately, vide judgment dated 10th August 1963 the Sub- ordinate Judge, Sasaram decided the case in favour of sons of Bhagelu Dubey holding that they are the occupancy tenant and are in possession of the land and as such, they were entitled to compensation of the acquired land. The Municipality challenged the award passed under the Land acquisition proceeding before this Court vide First Appeal No. 555 of 1963 and ultimately the appeal was dismissed vide order da

Applicable IPC Section: 133

Statute Text:
Section 133 of the Indian Penal Code. Abetment of an assault by An officer, soldier, sailor Or airman on his superior officer, when in the execution of his office. Whoever abets an assault by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, on any superior officer being in the execution of his office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.