The Allahabad High Court, on November 21, 2024, delivered a landmark judgment addressing a prolonged property dispute in Matters Under Article 227 No. 9914 of 2023 (Lakshmi Narayan & Others v. State of U.P. & Others). The case, involving family members contesting possession of a disputed property in Jaunpur district, was adjudicated by Justice Nand Prabha Shukla. The Court emphasized the supremacy of civil remedies over proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which deals with breaches of peace.
Case Background
The dispute centers around Plot No. 287 Ka in Village Belwa, Tehsil Mariahu, District Jaunpur, where petitioner Lakshmi Narayan claims ownership and uninterrupted possession. The petitioners reside in a two-story house constructed on the plot, using the first floor as a godown and shop and the second for residential purposes. Respondents, relatives of the petitioners, allege co-ownership and claimed illegal occupation of the property.
The controversy began when Durga Prasad, a respondent, initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in May 2022, citing fears of a breach of peace. Despite a police report supporting the respondent’s claims, an inspection by the Naib Tehsildar on April 13, 2023, confirmed the petitioners’ possession. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) subsequently dropped the proceedings, prompting the respondents to file a criminal revision application, which led to a conflicting decision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, on August 28, 2023.
Key Legal Issues
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts vs. Section 145 Cr.P.C.:
The primary contention was whether the dispute, rooted in property ownership and possession, should proceed under criminal law or be resolved through civil litigation.
2. Apprehension of Breach of Peace:
The respondents argued that the petitioners’ possession of the disputed property created grounds for breach of peace, warranting criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
3. Evidence of Ownership and Possession:
The petitioners relied on the CH Form 45 entry from 1972 under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, establishing their uncontested title and possession. This entry had attained finality and was unchallenged during consolidation.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed the SDM’s earlier decision to drop proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the civil court’s jurisdiction in property disputes. Justice Nand Prabha Shukla cited the Supreme Court’s precedent in Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey (2002), which stated:
“It is not in every case where a civil suit is filed that Section 145 proceedings would never lie. Civil courts are competent to decide both title and possession issues, and their orders are binding on Magistrates.”
The Court found that:
– The Naib Tehsildar’s inspection report confirmed the petitioners’ possession and absence of breach of peace.
– The entry in CH Form 45, dating back to the consolidation process, conclusively supported the petitioners’ title.
– The respondents had already initiated a civil suit (Original Suit No. 1262 of 2023) seeking partition, rendering Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings redundant.
Decision
The Court set aside the Additional Sessions Judge’s order of August 28, 2023, reinstating the SDM’s decision to drop the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It observed:
“Civil remedies are the appropriate recourse for parties seeking title and possession, particularly when consolidation entries remain unchallenged.”
The Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners, bringing clarity to the legal principles governing disputes where both civil and criminal remedies are invoked.
Parties and Representation
– Petitioners: Lakshmi Narayan and Others, represented by Advocate Ashutosh Mishra.
– Respondents: State of U.P. and six others, represented by Advocates Kashif Gilani, Rakesh Kumar Mishra, and Government Advocate Suraj Singh.
