IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.623 of 2007 WAJID ALI BARMAKI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR For the petitioner: Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey,Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar. 6 2.2.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents second set, the Police officials, who are alleged to have forcefully evicted the petitioner from peaceful possession of the premises and have put lock on it. The petitioner submits that earlier he was a tenant and subsequently the premises in question was sold on 9.5.2007 by one Ujjwal Kumar Sen and Abhijit Kumar Sen and he got his name mutated and has been paying rent since then. A Title Suit has been filed by respondents 3rd set claiming title and possession over the land being T.S.No.173 of 2007.The learned counsel submits that respondent 3rd set in para 8 have stated as “On 9.5.07 Ujjawal Kumar Sen and Abhijit Kumar Sen sold the house in two part in the name of the Petitioner and his brother, namely, Md.Sahnawaj both Sons of late Md.Saffi.” The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of a case of Rajesh and others vrs. the State of Bihar reported in 1995 PLJR 7 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that even if petitioner’s possession is unauthorized it cannot be taken away by the State authority in an unauthorized manner and not 2 by taking law in their own hand. As a consequence the division bench directed the respondent to unlock the premises of the petitioner in the aforesaid case. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has forcibly entered into the premises in connivance with the others instead of taking recourse under the provision of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It appears that a Title Suit is pending between the parties relating to title and possession. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the locking of the premises by police is unauthorized and direct that the key of the same be handed over to court in seisin of title suit. The trial court would put back the person who was in possession of the premises on the date of locking of it by the police. Such order must be passed within two months of receipt of copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ application is disposed of. Anilksinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)