Skip to content


B. Ramaprapannacharya Vs. the State and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1974CriLJ877
AppellantB. Ramaprapannacharya
RespondentThe State and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....secretary of akhil bhartiya sihrivaishnava sadhu samiti sought for possession as against ram jivan dass and ram kisihian dass respondents 2 and g and it was stated that there was an apprehension of breach of peace. that case was ultimately decided by the high court and v. s, deshpande j. held on 22-8-1968 that the petitioner was general secretary and that he should he given possession ever the temple. thereafter the first phase of this dispute seems to have come to an end.2. according to petitioner. ram jivan dass, ram behari dass, ram karan dass. nand ram dass and ram kishan dass who are respondents 2 to 6 were holding possession on his behalf and they were acting either as his agents or puja-ris in the temple. sometimes in 1970 a dispute arose between the respondents 2 to 6 and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

D.B. Lal, J.

1. This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution, relates to a dispute about possession of Jakoo Temple and the case seems to possess a chequered history. In 1967 there was a dispute under Section 145 and the petitioner who claimed to 'be the General Secretary of Akhil Bhartiya Sihrivaishnava Sadhu Samiti sought for possession as against Ram Jivan Dass and Ram Kisihian Dass respondents 2 and G and it was stated that there was an apprehension of breach of peace. That case was ultimately decided by the High Court and V. S, Deshpande J. held on 22-8-1968 that the petitioner was General Secretary and that he should he given possession ever the temple. Thereafter the first phase of this dispute seems to have come to an end.

2. According to petitioner. Ram Jivan Dass, Ram Behari Dass, Ram Karan Dass. Nand Ram Dass and Ram Kishan Dass who are respondents 2 to 6 were holding possession on his behalf and they were acting either as his agents or puja-ris in the temple. Sometimes in 1970 a dispute arose between the respondents 2 to 6 and Ram Jivan Dass respondent No. 2 sent a complaint to the Chief Minister against the other respondents. As a result to that, the Private Secretary to the Chief Minister forwarded the complaint to the District Magistrate for such necessary action as he deemed fit. Upon that com-plaint, according to petitioner a case under Section 145 has again been registered on 16-12-1970. This case is still pending decision before the District Magistrate. A period of 3 years has since elapsed and for some reason or the other the case is not being decided.

3. The petitioner contends, that the complaint of Ram Jivan Dass is dated 24-7-1970 and the case under Section 145 was registered on 16-12-1970. As such the dispute was rather stale of a period of more than three months and hence the District Magistrate could not take notice of the possession if any of Ram Jivan Dass. The petitioner had applied to be made a party to that case. His prayer was refused. At first an ex parte order was made dismissing his petition but later on the restoration application was also dismissed. According to petitioner the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction because the High Court had already decided in 1968 that the petitioner was entitled to possession. .In reply to this, the learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner no longer holds the office of the General Secretary of that Sadhu Samiti. The petitioner also contends that there is no danger of breach of peace and Ram Jivan Dass seems to have been evicted more than three months before cognizance of the case was taken by the Magistrate. The petitioner contends that in fact he is in possession and not the respondents. According to him, the District Magistrate is likely to be influenced by the Chief Minister and he would not get a fair and free trial before him. The prayer sought for is that the entire proceedings be quashed and possession be delivered to the petitioner. The second relief seems to be contrary to the allegation that the petitioner is still in lawful possession over the property.

4. I have heard at length the petitioner. Shri B. B. Vaid Advocate argued the case on behalf of the respondents. In order to attract Section 561-A, the petitioner has to establish that his case is not amenable to a relief under any other provision of the Code and inherent jurisdiction of the High Court must be exercised in his favour. If the petitioner was not made a party to the proceeding he had the remedy in revision before the Court of Session. if the District Magistrate decides the case against him, he will again have a remedy in revision or in appeal as the case may be. It is rather premature that he has come to this Court. Hence Section 561-A cannot be applied.

5. As regards Article 227 the power of superintendence can be exercised by the Court only in special circumstances. When the petitioner has another efficacious remedy. Article 227 cannot be invoked. Prima facie the District Magistrate has the jurisdiction and if. he makes a wrong order, the same can be corrected by the higher Courts. Article 227 is not meant to correct supposed errors of law or fact which may arise in the judgment which is yet to be pronounced. The impugned order Annexure B was itself passed in 1970 and the present petition challenging that order is highly belated. If the petitioner had any personal grievance against the District Magistrate, he could move a transfer application which he has apparently not done. It is expected that the learned District Magistrate will take regard to the pleas raised by the petitioner especially the legal ones to wit that Ram Jivan Dass is out of possession since more than three months or that the petitioner was held by the High Court to be entitled to possession and that there is no apprehension of breach of peace because the proceedings are pending for more than three years. It should not be understood that this Court has expressed any opinion on merit. It is made clear that the learned District Magistrate is free to decide the case on merit in whatever manner he chooses to decide. It is merely pointed out that these contentions of the petitioner will bear scrutiny of the Court and the petitioner should not have a feeling that pertinent questions of law or fact have remained to toe decided because he was not made a party and there was none to put forward these contentions.

6. With these observations, I do not find any substance prima facie to entertain the petition and hereby dismiss the same without making any order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //