IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.720 of 2009 DR. MANORANJAN CHATURVEDI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 29.6.2010 The petitioner seeks a direction commanding the respondent authorities to discharge their duties ensuring the peaceful cultivating possession over the lands in question and deputing the police force for the needful and interdicting the respondents from interfering with the right, title, interest and cultivating possession of the petitioner over the land in question. The petitioner is a raiyat holding modest area of land in villages Mishrawalia and Pandey Patti near Buxar. After retirement as Director-in-Chief, Health Services Bihar on 30.6.2007 and in view of the death of the brothers and other family members, he is looking after the landed property. On 28.2.1898 the erstwhile owners namely Prakash Kurmi, Lakhan Kurmi and Kewaldhari Kurmi sold lands in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner namely Tapeshwari Chaubey and Babua Ram Chaubey measuring 15 Bigha 10 Kathas 10 Dhurs located in Village Mishrawelia and 29 Bigha, 9 kathas, 9 Dhur in village Pandey Patti, the details of the lands along with plot and Khata no.has been mentioned in the sale deed transcribed in Hindi at Annexure-1. Further more, one Akasho Kunwar, the auction purchaser of T.S.Suit No.35 of 1901, also transferred the lands measuring 5 Bighas in village Pandey Patti, Buxar in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner Tapeshwari Chaubey 2 and Babua Ram Chaubey on 18.11.1901. Accordingly, the cadastral survey in the year 1910-12 was prepared exclusively in the name of the ancestors of the petitioner as would be evident from Annexure-3. All rent receipts granted by the land lord and the State of Bihar are in possession of the petitioner. The revisional survey was also prepared in the name of grand father of the petitioner namely Babua Ram Chaubey in the year 1970, besides the Chak Khatian which was also prepared in the name of family members of the petitioner. A dispute was raised by some persons, who filed T.S.No.7 of 1992, which too was dismissed. Thereafter respondents 7 to 25 have also instituted T.S.No.312 of 2005 in which an injunction petition was filed, which was also dismissed on 20.7.2006. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, they have preferred Misc. Appeal No.5/06 which was also dismissed on 31.8.2007. Thereafter the respondent Kameshwar Chaudhary and others started selling the lands in favour of respondent nos.26 to 34. The petitioner made various representations to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, contained in Annexures-5 and 6. However, no effective steps were taken to ensure peaceful cultivation of the land by the petitioner despite having all decrees in his favour and on the contrary, F.I.R.No.109/09 was instituted against him. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner should seek his remedy in T.S.No.312 of 2005 itself which is pending. Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 3 KHAN deals with consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. The court is equally empowered to punish such person for violation of order of injunction so passed. In this case the injunction petition filed by the other sides was not only rejected but the Misc. Appeal preferred against it too was dismissed. The petitioner as such should have sought his remedy in the suit itself instead of approaching this court in writ jurisdiction. In case such an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. is filed by the petitioner, the learned court below would consider the same after noticing the other sides and will proceed in the matter forthwith. It would be open to the petitioner to bring all these matters to the notice of the District Administration as well. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)