- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to quash the letter contained in Memo no. 1068/Go. Ranchi dated 10.05.2012 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi directing the Circle Officer, Nagari Block and Circle Inspector of the same Block to maintain law and order with sufficient police force for measurement and erection of the boundary wall of the private respondent no. 7 over a piece of land situated at village - 533, 488 and 492, Khata no. 1, Thana no. 133, Mauza Daladali, Anchal Nagri, District Ranchi measuring total of twelve (12) acres. The little background is required for appreciating the present grievances raised by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 7 had approached this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 417 of 2010 with a prayer to direct the respondent authority to save life and property of the petitioners and his family members from the private respondents, who are bent upon to capture the entire property of the petitioners by adopting means with the help of close relatives and police personnels at Ranchi. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the petitioners were made a party originally in the writ petition but they they were deleted on 22.07.2011 before the final order was passed and as such, they did not get any occasion to oppose the prayer made by the respondent no. 7 in the said writ petition. However, this Court passed the following order in the said writ petitioner: "Order no. 04 Dated 22 July , 2011 Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent nos. 6 to 12 are not the necessary parties and prays for deleting their names from the cause title. He is permitted to do so. Learned senior counsel further prays that the order similar to the orders passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 436 of 1999 on 18.8.1999 (Annexure -2) and W.P. (Cr) No. 203 of 2003 on 18.10.2003 (Annexure 3), may be passed. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the State, referring to the paragraphs -6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner has never approached the police by any written application. Mr. Roy denied and disputed this position and submitted that a written request was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, who in turn, forwarded the same to the Officer in Charge, Ratu, Ranchi (Annexure 5), but no action has been taken. Be that as it may, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh request to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi who will look into the matter and if satisfied with the request of the petitioner, will do the needful, in accordance with law. With this observation, this writ petition stands disposed of."
(2.) THE perusal of the said order indicates that this Court did not enter into the merits of the controversies raised by the said petitioners, respondent no. 7 herein but simply permitted him to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi with a request to look into the matter and if satisfied on the request of the petitioners, will do the needful in accordance with law. It is the contention of the petitioners that thereafter the respondent Sub - Divisional Officer, Ranchi has passed the impugned order purportedly acting upon the directions of this Court and directed the Circle Officer and Circle Inspector, Nagri Block to deploy the police force to ensure construction of boundary wall of the respondent no. 7 on the lands described hereinabove. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi had acted beyond the authority of law in a dispute between the private parties and such an order could not have been passed, which is amenable to the writ jurisdiction and, therefore, the same is required to be interfered.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 submits that the writ petitioner had approached the court of Sub ordinate Judge, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 633 of 2011 in respect of the same subject matter of the property, in which not only the private respondents but also the State Officials including the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the Circle Officer and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, have been impleaded as defendants. It is submitted that in the said Title Suit the plaintiff/petitioner had sought perpetual injunction for restraining the respondents from forcible dispossession of the plaintiff from the the suit property or any part thereof of the suit property described in schedule B of the said plaint, which matches with the descriptions of the property in the writ petition.;