IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.52 of 2010 MADHURI DEVI, WIFE OF HIRALAL SAH, RESIDENT OF MAIN ROAD AMLA TOLI, BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR (TOWN) DISTRICT BUXAR………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BUXAR, DISTRICT BUXAR 3. OFFICER-IN-CHARE BUXAR (TOWN) POLICE STATION P.S. BUXAR TOWN, DISTRICT BXUAR 4. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SURENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF INDUSTRIAL AREA BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR (IND), DISTRICT BUXAR……………………………………………..….RESPONDENTS ----------- 4. 22.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It appears that respondent no.4 moved this Court earlier through Cr.W.J.C. No. 811 of 2006. In that writ application he claimed that on the basis of an agreement to sell, executed by the petitioner in his favour, he was put in possession. However, later on, he was forcibly evicted from possession of the shop by the petitioner in connivance with some police constables. In view of such stand of respondent no.4, this Court, by order dated 05.03.2008, directed the Superintendent of Police, Buxar to consider the contents of the representation of respondent no.4 and, if the allegations against the constables of the local police station were found true, he was directed to take - 2 - disciplinary action against them and also to ensure that respondent no.4 is put in possession of the shop. With such direction, the writ application was disposed of. Petitioner has filed this writ application alleging that without proper enquiry, a notice has been issued to her to vacate the shop. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of Police. From the counter affidavit it appears that role of the police, in forcibly getting the shop vacated from possession of respondent no.4 and putting the petitioner in possession, has not been enquired into conclusively. Without such enquiry, a notice has been issued to the petitioner by the Officer Incharge in view of the letter dated 07.01.2009 of superior authorities. The order dated 5.03.2008 is very clear and it clearly directs the Superintendent of Police Buxar to verify the contents of the representation of respondent no.4 if they are correct, meaning thereby that S.P. had to satisfy himself by holding the enquiry himself or getting an enquiry held by a responsible officer of his - 3 - office to ascertain as to whether or not, with the help of the police personnel, the respondent was forcibly dispossessed and petitioner was put in possession of the shop without any valid orders of a competent court. In case he came to a final conclusion that the police personnel have illegally allowed the petitioner to dispossess respondent no.4 and take possession of the shop then he had to restore possession of respondent no.4. Before such enquiry, police was not required to take any action in restoring the possession respondent no.4. From the records it appears that such enquiry has not been held and S.P. has not come to the conclusion to that effect. Therefore, Superintendent of Police Buxar is directed to hold such an enquiry, come to a final conclusion and then only take appropriate steps, as directed by the said order. In case in the enquiry he does not find any role played by the police personnel in the alleged illegal dispossession of respondent no.4 and restoration of possession of the petitioner, he need not interfere with the matter and leave the parties to take recourse - 4 - to law and obtain appropriate orders of the competent court, which shall be without prejudice to the case of either party in a court of law. Superintendent of Police, Buxar must conclude the enquiry and come to a final conclusion in the matter within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Let a copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)