AJIT KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : In W.P.(C) No. 2275 of 2006 : The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction calling upon the respondents to certify and to show cause as to how and under what circumstances and under what authority of law, the respondent authorities are seeking to forcibly demolish building premises belonging to the petitioner situated over PlotNos. 445 and 446 of Khata No. 298 of Mouza-Ramgarh, District-Hazaribagh measuring 200 feet x 38 feet over which the petitioner has been continuing in possession for the last four decades and has also purchased the same by the registered sale deeds particularly when there is neither any decree or order of any competent court of law authorising the respondents to forcibly dispossess the petitioner and demolish the same particularly when the said action is being taken by the local administration and police for the purposes of handing over possession to the private respondents who had filed a suit seeking recovery of possession of the said premises but the same was dismissed on 20.12.2000 and thus the respondent authorities have taken the law in their own hands and have acted as land grabbers for the purposes of dispossessing the petitioner and handing over the possession to the private respondents as also for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to forthwith desist/refrain from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner and/or demolish the building premises situated thereon as also for issuance of a further appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondents to restore the status quo and possession of the petitioner as also duly compensate the petitioner for their illegal, arbitrary and highhanded unauthorized action. In W.P.(C) No. 408 of 2007 : The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by Smt. Sima Sinha,Sub Judge,Hazaribagh in T.S. No. 165 of 2006 whereby the learned Sub Judge has been pleased to return the plaint to the petitioner on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the same is trust property and also allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 21 C.P.C. Read with Order 7 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. and the petition for injunction was not found to be maintainable. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner concerning the same property and the facts are identical and both the writ petitions are accordingly being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under : One Gulraj Sarawagi (hereinafter referred to as the owner)executed a registered lease deed on 6.6.1961 and inducted the petitioner as tenant for a period of 10 years on monthly rentof Rs. 300/- with a renewal clause for a further period of 10 years at the enhanced rate of Rs. 600/- and the petitioner accordingly came in possession of the property in relation to 38 feet x 200 feet of lands comprised within Plot Nos. 445 and 446 of Khata No. 298, P.S. No. 82 of Mouza - Ramgarh, District - Hazaribagh measuring an area of 38 feet in width-north to south and 200 feet in length-east to west. In the year 1968,the owner filed a Title (Eviction) suit being No. 27/1968 against the petitioner for eviction of the lease hold premises which was decreed against the petitioner. On 9.8.1979 the owner executed a deed of Trust and the settlor constructed a Jain temple known as "Jokhiram Mungraj Digambar Jain Mandir over Block A out of four Block Nos. A,B.C and D. The name of Samaj was mutated with respect to the entire property under Trust deed and rent receipt up to 2005 has been issued in favour of the Trust. In the meanwhile, a title appeal No. 4 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner which was allowed vide order dated 9.3.1994 in terms of compromise and the decree of eviction was set aside. As per the compromise it was agreed that the entire lease hold premises were to be sold to the petitioner in two blocks. As per the terms of compromise Dinanath Sarawagi being the only son of Gulraj Sarawagi( the owner) executed two registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 16.7.93 and 28.9.05 for entire lease hold properties area 200 feet x 38 feet besides a Gali of 3 feet wide and a staircase. It appears that the private respondents filed a title suit No. 31 of 1995 thereafter against the petitioner for the declaration of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner as illegal and also for recovery of possession and the said title suit No. 31 of 1995 was dismissed for default on 20.12.2000 vide order of Sub-Judge Vth, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, on 16.8.2005 a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. Was initiated by Sub-Divisional officer, Ramgarh in Case No. 82 of 2005 against the respondents. However, the proceedings was finally dropped on 30.8.2005 on the application filed by one Tarachand Jain, Chairman, Jharkhand State Digambar Jain Religious Trust Board under Section 144 (5) of Cr.P.C. On 15.02.2006 Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2005 filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh was dismissed with an observation that the Sub-Divisional Officer,l Ramgarh had the power to rescind the order initiating the proceeding and the said order needed no interference. The private respondents along with police personnel started demolishing the godown of the petitioner on 14.4.06 and on 16.4.06 petitioner made an application to the Superintendent of Police complaining that the private respondent have demolished his godown. This led to filing of the first Writ Petition (C) No. 2275 of 2006 challenging the illegal action of the respondents and local administration and also sought restoration of possession. In the meanwhile, petitioner also filed a title suit No. 165 of 2006 for declaration of his title to the suit land and also recovery of the possession of the suit property and the defendant of the title suit (private respondent herein) filed an application under Section 21 read with Order 7 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the maintainability of the suit. The learned Sub Judge, Ist, Hazaribagh vide its impugned order returned the plaint to the petitioner on the ground that the said property is a trust property and the court lacks jurisdiction to decide the same as provided under Section 43 (B) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act. The aforesaid order dated 13.12.2006 has been sought to be challenged in the second Writ Petition (C) No. 408 of 2007. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the action of the respondent is wholly illegal, unsustainable and violative of Article 14 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India. It has also been contended that the rule of law has been totally disregarded by forcible dispossession of the petitioner by demolishing the structure/godown etc. over the property purchased in terms of the sale deed of lawful owner. It has further been contended that the District Administration and local police have taken law in their own hand and in a way passed a decree and executed the same by handing over possession to the private respondents. The Title Suit No. 312 of 1995 filed by the private respondents was dismissed for default and thereafter they never took steps for restoration of the suit.
(3.) PER contra, the respondents authority in their counter affidavit filed through Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh have stated that the writ petition is not maintainable since the answering respondents were not impleaded. It has further been contended that the property consist of four Block Nos. A, B, C and D intervened by a private Road of 12 feet width running West to East emanating from Hazaribagh-Ranchi Road on the Western side in between the Block A, B on the one side and C, D on the other side and the settlor has constructed a Jain Temple known as "Jokhiram Mungraj Digambar Jain Mandir" over Block 'A' for religious performance and for better management the vacant Block B land was entrusted to Ramgarh Digambar Jain Samaj, who constructed a Jain Bhawan over Bock B lands adjacent to Block A lands. It is further contended that the settlor also owned and possessed land measuring an area of 142 feet East to West, 40 feet North to South described in Block C described in Block C which is just south to Block B intervened by said private road. It has further been contended that the deed executed in favour of the petitioner was also illegal for the reason that the son of the owner was only one of the settlor among the seven settlor. It has further been contended that the entire properties was equipped by creation of a deed of trust for religions and charitable purpose and the deed was produced by the President of the Board namely Tarachand Jain under the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. It has further been contended that after disposal of the eviction Suit No. 27 of 1968, the Ramgarh Jain Samaj or the settlee came in possession of the property which was subject matter of suit and after due formalities the name of Samaj was mutated with respect to the entire property under Trust Deed and up-to- date rent receipt of the year 2005 has been issued in favour of religious Trust Board. The further contention has been raised that the claim of the petitioner is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and malafide and has been initiated with ulterior motive to grab the property of trust. ;