IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.336 of 2008 SUSHILA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 11. 11.09.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel for respondents 6, 7 & 8. Respondent no. 9 is stated to be deceased. No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 10. The husband of the petitioner and the respondents 6 to 10 are own brothers. There was a Title Suit No. 5/2001 by the petitioner in respect of the suit properties identified as Khata No. 62 (New Khata 156) old Khesra No. 1526 (new Khesra No. 1944) measuring 0.05 decimals in Mauza Piyania, PS Udwantnagar, District Bhojpur. The suit came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner. She then preferred Execution Case No. 23/2001. It is her case that delivery of possession was then given to her through the process of the Court on 13.2.2002 at 2.45 PM by the Circle Officer and the then Officer Incharge of Udwantnagar PS. The grievance in the writ petition is that after the delivery of possession to her of the suit properties in the execution case, respondents 6 to 10 forcibly intruded into the property and resumed possession. If it was purely a private property dispute and a case of forcible intrusion vis a vis private parties there may not have been any occasion to interfere in writ jurisdiction But when possession has been given to the petitioner through the process of the Court and thereafter unlawful intrusion is made by any other, the alleged intruder then not only violates and disobeys 2 the order of a court of law but also demeans the majesty and supremacy of the law. Appropriate corrective action for violation of the Court order and contumacious disobedience of the court’s order are separate aspects of the matter. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that respondents 6 and 7 have vacated the suit property of which possession was delivered to the petitioner in the execution proceeding. No such statement is being made on behalf of respondent no. 8. In the facts and circumstances, respondent no. 9 having been deceased any person claiming through him shall also be in unlawful possession. Respondent no. 10 has chosen not to appear. The petitioner shall file an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur enclosing all necessary documents identifying clearly the property of which delivery of possession was effected. The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur shall verify if any person was in occupation of the properties to the extent that delivery of possession was made to the petitioner. If such occupation is without the consent of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur is directed to ensure that the orders of the executing court already implemented are restored in the manner that it was done on 13.2.2002 by use of appropriate force. This Court expects that the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur shall act promptly on any such application of the 3 petitioner without requiring her to have to approach this Court again. This writ application is disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)