IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.806 of 2007 KAUSHAL KISHORE PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 19.8.2008 Heard Shri V.Nath, learned counsel for the petitioiner and learned JC to AAG 3. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for providing appropriate protection of his life and property against some unauthorized persons who are interfering with his possession and peaceful enjoyment of property in question. The case of the petitioner is that his father purchased the land in question in auction sale held by the Civil Court in Money Execution Case No.20 of 1957. Pursuant to the auction purchase the petitioner’s father and his family was put in possession of the aforesaid land bearing Khata No.150 Plot No.462, 464 measuring area of 1 Bigha 4 Katha 6 dhur and 1 Katha 10 dhur respectively, as would appear from the order passed in Money Execution Case No.20 of 1957 as contained in Annexure-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a group of criminals having evil eyes on the aforesaid lands of the petitioner are threatening him to part with heavy money if he wanted to cultivate and retain the land. The petitioner has complained about the activities of such persons to the District Magistrate, Begusarai vide registered letter dated 26.5.2007. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner prays for a direction to the District Administration to provide suitable - 2 - protection for him. Learned counsel for the State submits that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner a proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated against some of the miscreants who have been causing disturbance as narrated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. He further submits that the petitioner ought to have filed a F.I.R. in case the accused persons are demanding extortion money from him or threatening to dispossess him of his land. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that a citizen has right to peaceful enjoyment of his land. The Apex Court in the case of P.R.Murlidharan and Ors Vs Swami Dharmanande Theertha Padar & Ors, (2006) 4 S.C.C. 501 has observed that a person is entitled to police protection if there is threat perception to his life and liberty or for protection of rights declared by a decree or order passed by a Civil Court. This court is also conscious of the fact that adequate police protection cannot be provided to all the persons, all the times in view of the divergent functions of State and District Administration. However, keeping in view of the fact, that the land has been purchased by the petitioner’s father pursuant to the auction sale in a case of Money Execution Decree, this court observes that if the petitioner files an application before the District Administration for providing - 3 - KHAN adequate security for his peaceful cultivation of land or safety and security of his life and property, the former, as far as possible, would try to provide such security to him. It will be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to take legal recourse in accordance with law if any one makes a demand of extortion money or tries to cause injury to his person. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (S.P.Singh,J)