IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12064 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.1. Asha Mishra Wife of Late Balendu Bhushan Mishra, Resident of Village - Pachamha, Post office - Suhirdnagar, Police Station - Begusarai Muffasil (Singhoul O.P.), District- Begusarai. 1.2. Sanjay Singh Son of late Balendu Bhushan Mishra, Resident of Village - Pachamha, Post office - Suhirdnagar, Police Station - Begusarai Muffasil (Singhoul O.P.), District- Begusarai. 1.3. Indu Bal D/o Late Balendu Bhushan Mishra, Resident of Village - Pachamha, Post office - Suhirdnagar, Police Station - Begusarai Muffasil (Singhoul O.P.), District- Begusarai. 1.4. Rakhi Kumari D/o Late Balendu Bhushan Mishra, wife of Kundan Kumar, Resident of Flat No. 112 New Millenium Apartment, Plot No. 2, Sector 23 Dwarika South West Delhi - 110077. 2. Prafulla Chandra Mishra, Son of Late Ramji Mishra Both are resident of Pachamba, Post Office- Suhirdnagar, Police Station- Begusarai Mufassil Singhoul O.P., District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 3. The Superinetendent of Police, Begusarai. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Begusarai Subdivision, District- Begusarai. 5. The Police Inspector, Police Station- Begusarai Muffasil Singhoul O.P., District- Begusarai. 6. The Circle Officer, Begusarai Block, District- Begusarai. 7. Md. Ishrafil Kunjara, Son of Late Gulam Rasool 8. Md. Alamgir Kunjara, Son of Late Bashir Kunjara 9. Md. Dastgir Kunjara, Son of Late Bashir Kunjara 10. Aurangjeb Son of Md. Israfil 11. Md. Rustam, Son of Md. Israfil 12. Nunna Son of Dastgir Kunjara All are resident of Village- Fatehpur, Police Station- Begusarai Muffasil Singhoul O.P., District- Begusarai. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Adv Mr. Shashi Dhar Jha, Adv For the State : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, AC to AAG-15 For Res. Nos. 7 to 12 : Mr. Baidyanath Thakur, Adv ====================================================== Patna High Court CWJC No.12064 of 2015(10) dt.06-08-2025 2/6 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10 06-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 7 to 12 and learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioners praying for a direction to the authorities to protect the life and property of the petitioners from the hands of respondent nos. 7 to 12 by prohibiting the respondent nos. 7 to 12 from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question. 3. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in question situated at Mauza Laduara, Thana No. 359, Tauzi No. 952 Khata No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Khesra No. 10, 13, 14, 4, 15, 9, 21, 16, 22, 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 19, 20, 11, 17 and 18 belongs to the petitioners for more than 100 years and the petitioners have been in possession of the said land since inception. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent nos. 7 to 12 are hell bent on grabbing the land of the petitioners and they have no valid document claiming title over the said land. He further alleges that during the pendency of the writ application also the respondents have grabbed a portion of the land and have forcefully constructed a hut over the said just to show that they are in possession of the land. He Patna High Court CWJC No.12064 of 2015(10) dt.06-08-2025 3/6 further submits that the petitioners feel completely threatened and unprotected and, therefore, having no option left, they have filed this writ application for a direction to be given to the authorities to protect their life and property at the hands of respondent nos. 7 to 12. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 7 to 12 strongly opposes and rejects the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the title of the land belongs to the respondents based on Khatiyan which he has also brought on record by way of Annexure-PR/C. He further submits that the entire land is under the possession of respondent nos. 7 to 12 from before filing of the writ application. In support of his argument, he refers to order passed by S.D.O. dated 24.06.2017 (Annexure-PR/D) which was passed in exercise of power under Section 146 of Cr.P.C. in which it has been stated and observed as follows: vr,o mHk; i{k }kjk nkf[ky vkosnu o izfr mRrj] Fkkuk/;{k fla?kkSy }kjk nkf[ky DR 399/16 fnukad &17-03-16 dk tkWp izfrosnu dk vkoyksdu o foospu djus rFkk mHk; i{k ds foK vf/koDrk dk cgl lquus ds mijkUr ;g Li’V gksrk gS fd iz”uxr tehu ds va”k ij f}rh; i{k >ksiM+h cuk dj jg jgs gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 146¼1½ na0iz0la0 mUrxZr tehu dks tIr (Attechment) djuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA 5. From the aforesaid observation made by the Sub- Patna High Court CWJC No.12064 of 2015(10) dt.06-08-2025 4/6 Divisional Officer, he submits that it is clearly evident that the respondents have a hut over the land in question which shows that they are in possession of the said land. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the private- respondent nos. 7 to 12 further submits that from the pleadings and documents which are part of this case record, it is clear that the title and possession both are in dispute between the parties with regard to the land in question and, therefore, he submits that till such time, there is an adjudication by a competent Civil Court on the issue of title and possession, the relief being claimed by the petitioners cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that on the basis of the submissions made by the rival parties i.e. the private-respondents and the petitioners, the best course available would be to ask the parties to get the dispute relating to title and possession adjudicated before a competent Civil Court. 8. Considering the submissions made by the parties, it would not be appropriate for this Court to made any observation or comment on the title or possession of the land in question. However, if any citizen feels threatened of his life and property, Patna High Court CWJC No.12064 of 2015(10) dt.06-08-2025 5/6 it is the duty of the State to provide adequate security to the said citizen, if he or she so deserves it. The assessment about the threat to life and property of any citizen can only be done by the authorities of the State after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter. In the present case, the petitioners are feeling threatened of their life and property at the hands of respondent nos. 7 to 12 and, therefore, they have approached this Court. 9. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to approach the District Magistrate, Begusarai and file a proper representation within one month from today explaining in detail as to how the petitioners are feeling threatened of their life and property at the hands of respondent nos. 7 to 12. Once such a representation is filed by the petitioners before the District Magistrate, Begusarai, the District Magistrate, Begusarai will not only hear the petitioners but will also grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the respondent nos. 7 to 12 and after hearing both the sides will take a decision as to whether the request of the petitioners for being provided adequate security should be granted or not. While considering the representation of the petitioners and also while hearing the respondent nos. 7 to 12, the District Magistrate, Begusarai will carefully examine all the documents relating to the land in question and thereafter Patna High Court CWJC No.12064 of 2015(10) dt.06-08-2025 6/6 take a decision for considering the request of the petitioners in accordance with law. It is once again made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the issue of title or possession of the land in question, which can only be decided by a competent Civil Court. The consideration by the District Magistrate, Begusarai would only be confined to the issue of providing or not providing security to the petitioners based on the submissions made by both the parties before him. 10. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ application is disposed of. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also be deemed to have been disposed of. kiran/- (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) U