Supreme Court directs Sub-Judge-I, Patna to dispose of a Title Suit of 2018 within one year

In Usha Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's  Division Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and S.V.N Bhatti passed a 3-page long order dated May 4, 2026, wherein, it wrote: "....we direct that Title Suit No.41 of 2018 pending on the file of learned Sub-Judge-I, Patna be disposed of within a period of one year from today." 

The case was instituted by the petitioner. The petitioner’s complaint to the Station House Officer was registered as non-FIR No.20/2013. Based on the Police Report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, initiated proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, qua the land. On 13.06.2013, the SDM, Sadar converted the Section 144, Cr.P.C. proceedings to Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and transferred the same to the Court of Executive Magistrate, Sadar. The Executive Magistrate, Patna Sadar vide order dated 2nd December, 2014 passed the final order declaring respondent No.7 to be in possession over the disputed land. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge but was unsuccessful. Further a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court which is resulted in the impugned order.

By the impugned 12-page long order dated September 10, 2024, Justice Bibek Chaudhury of the High Court after noticing the pendency of the Civil Suit, namely, Title Suit No.41 of 2018 before the Sub-Judge-I, Patna filed by the petitioner herein and while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., relegated the claim of ownership to be decided by the Civil Court. 

Justice Chaudhuri had concluded: "25. It is needless to say that the object 145 of the Cr.P.C. is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace by maintaining one or either of the parties in possession, which the Court finds they had immediately before the dispute, until the actual right of the parties has been determined by the Civil Court. 26. Therefore, the Civil Court is the appropriate forum for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of any property. The issue as to whether any person has the right to possess the property or not cannot be decided by the Criminal Court. The Criminal Court under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. shall protect the existing possession, be it lawful or unlawful. In order to evict a person/persons from possession of a particular piece of land, decree of a Civil Court is required. 27. It is ascertained from the record that the petitioner did not appear to contest the case before the learned Executive Magistrate and the order under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was passed ex parte. The order in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2015 was also passed ex parte. 28. The petitioner has not come up with a case that the impugned order suffer from abuse of the process of the Court or the impugned order is required to be set aside to secure ends of justice. Both the parties are claiming ownership over the property on the basis of certain documents, veracity of which can only be decided by the Civil Court. 29. Under the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, I do not find any ground to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 30. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case is thus, dismissed, on contest. 

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case had arise out of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing of an order dated July 16, 2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, VI Court at Patna, in Criminal Revision of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the Judge had dismissed the Revision filed by the petitioner against the order, dated December 2, 2014, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Patna Sadar in Case No. 520 (M) of 2013 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner had submitted that the land in question originally belonged to one Babu Jodhan Prasad Singh and subsequently by successive transfer, the land was owned by the vendor of the petitioner. 

The case of the petitioner is that for land of Tauzi No. 131 of Mauza – Jaganpura, Babu Shiv Narayan Chaudhary and Jodhan Prasad filed a Rent Suit No. 11 of 1910 and thereafter in Executive Case No. 1015 of 1913, whole Tauzi including Plot No. 1200, measuring 96 decimals came into their possession. The petitioner has narrated the entire story of devolution of interest in the said property by his vendor, Pramod Kumar Sinha. Further case of the petitioner is that the Respondents on the basis of fake and forged document tried to disturbed the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said land and as such she was constrained to file a Land Dispute Case No. 27 of 2013-14 in the Court of DCLR, Patna Sadar under the provisions of Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009. In the said proceeding, the Respondents appeared before the DCLR in pursuance of notice and filed written statement therein. After hearing the parties, the DCLR held that the petitioners have title and possession over the land by its order dated 5th of October, 2013. An order of declaration of title and possession of the petitioner was also passed by the DCLR. It was further directed that the petitioner has been forcibly and illegally dispossessed and she may be given possession of the land in question. On the basis of police report, given in Case No. 20 of 2013, dated 12th of April, 2013, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Patna, initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter 2013, the Executive Magistrate converted the said proceeding to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner was the first party and Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 10 were the second party. 

The Executive Magistrate, Patna Sadar vide order, dated 2nd of December, 2014, passed the final order declaring the possession of the Respondents over the disputed land. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Cr. Revision before the Sessions Judge, Patna bearing Cr. Revisional No. 32 of 2015. The said Revision was subsequently transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge – VI Court at Patna for hearing and disposal. The petitioner was informed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions – VI, Patna that the date of hearing of the Revision would be fixed on 21st of July, 2015. However, on that date, the petitioner came to know that the Revision Application was finally disposed of by the Court of Revision vide order dated 16th of July, 2015. It is contended by the petitioner that when the petitioner’s ownership and possession was decided and declared by the DCLR under the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, the said order is binding upon the learned Executive Magistrate. The learned Executive Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court did not consider the said fact and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. By filing a supplementary affidavit, dated 3rd of February, 2016 that the Cr. Revision No. 32 of 2015 was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge – VI, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of hearing. On 6th of August, 2024, the petitioner filed 3rd supplementary affidavit, stating, inter alia, that after purchase of the land in question, the husband of the petitioner Sunil Kumar (HUF), mutated his name in respect of the said land and has been paying malguzari to the Government of Bihar. The HUF of Sunil Kumar was a partner in M/s Satyendra Kumar & Company and the said land was mortgaged to Indian Overseas Bank on 3rd of November, 2006 till 24th of July, 2015. The Executive Magistrate passed order dated 26th of April, 2014 in the absence of the petitioner and the case was posted for evidence of the 1st party. On 30th of August, 2014, the case was posted for ex parte hearing against the petitioner. 

The Advocate of the petitioner, who are entrusted to look after the case, did not take any action and accordingly the case was fixed for evidence of the second party on 22nd of November, 2014 and final order has been passed on 2nd of December, 2014. It is alleged that there was over-writing on the dates
fixed for hearing of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner and her son filed Title Suit No. 41 of 2018 in the Court of the Sub-Judge-I, Patna for declaration of title and permanent injunction, restraining the defendants / second party from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. The said suit is still pending before the learned Sessions Judge, XIV Court, Patna, for consideration of the petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, filed by the petitioner.

In such a backdrop, the Supreme Court has observed: "4. We find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order."

Patna High Court sets aside illegal order of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, Begusarai

Setting aside the order of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, Begusarai, Patna High Court observed that "The impugned order is not only bad in law, but perverse and passed without following the procedure and power of the Executive Magistrate under Chapter-X of the Cr.P.C." Rameshwar Prasad Singh, S/o Late Nathuni Singh, the petitioner from Manserpur, Ballia, Begusarai, had challenged an order dated June 8, 2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, Begusarai, in Dispute Case No. 01 of 2016-17, registered on the basis of a plain official letter, written by Sadanand Singh, respondent no. 7 to the Executive Magistrate. The case was filed on July 18, 2018.

It has been noted by the Court that by passing the impugned order on June 8, 2017, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ballia, Begusarai, passed an order restraining the opposite parties from making any obstruction to the petitioner (respondent no. 7 in High Court) from carrying on repairing as well as renovation work of his hut, situated on khesra no.-519, over a land measuring about 2 dhurs.

In its order, the Court recorded that "no proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated by the Sub-divisional Magistrate while passing the impugned order in the nature of injunction. By such order, it is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is prevented from his enjoyment over the subject land." Section 144 (7) states that where an application under Section 144 (5) or 144 (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.

The Advocate for the petitioner submitted that prior to making such application before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the respondent no. 7 himself filed a suit for declaration of his title and other consequential relief before the 1st court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Begusarai, which was registered as Title Suit No. 5 of 2016, dated January 2, 2016. In this suit the respondent no. 7 being the plaintiff did not file any application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making any obstruction against the repairing work of his hut. The Court recorded that "On the contrary, suppressing the this fact, the respondent no. 7 obtained a most illegal order from the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ballia, Begusarai." The judgement was authored by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri.