news details |
|
|
| It is justice v/s do's and don'ts of police | | |
15 years ago, court directed police to give plaintiff possession of land kept at their superdnama at Chhani Himmat, but cops say property is unidentified till date
BHARAT BHUSHAN
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, May 22: It is a case of the "domineering" police allegedly assuming the role of accused and "defying" court orders issued a decade and a half back.
The court of Ist class judicial magistrate, Jammu, ordered police on April 3, 1995, to deliver possession of a piece of land to Mulkh Raj at Chhani Himmat, but till date they had not helped the plaintiff to get his land back from the land mafia.
The dilly-dallying police tactics is obviously the manifestation of their remiss and own do's and don'ts. Though wretched due to the long-drawn legal battle, and indifferent police, the despondent petitioner remained committed to take his struggle to the bitter end and moved the high court through advocate Anil Sethi.
His case got a new life when high court judge, Justice JP Singh directed Trikuta Nagar police station SHO to appear in person before the court in the first week of June as he was held guilty of contempt.
He observed the possession of 2.5 kanals of land at Chhani Himmat was not delivered to the petitioner despite finality attached to the proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Singh said that during the pendency of proceedings in his court, the SHO was required to ensure compliance of the magistrate's order, which, however, had not been complied with. "I do not find any merit in the submission of deputy advocate general BR Chandan appearing for police that the land in question has not been appropriately identified by the revenue agencies," he asserted.
He observed that the police station functionaries were found remiss in the discharge of their duty to deliver the possession of the land, placed on their superdnama by the court, to the petitioner.
"The Trikuta Nagar police station SHO is directed to appear in person to show cause as to why proceedings in contempt be not initiated against him for not delivering the possession of the property which was placed on his superdnama, to the petitioner, complying with the April 3, 1995 order of the Ist class judicial magistrate," Justice Singh said.
He directed the SHO to appear before the court in the first week of June.
In the case filed against Fattu Hussain of Basant Vihar, Trikuta Nagar, on September 21, 1984, Mulkh Raj alleged that his 2.5 kanals of land at Chhani Himmat had been encroached upon by the accused. On October 9, 1984, the court attached the property and kept it on the superdnama of Gandhi Nagar police station SHO under whose jurisdiction Chhani Himmat fell that time. After the carving out of a separate police station at Trikuta Nagar, the matter got transferred there.
On April 3, 1995, the court had directed Trikuta Nagar police to actually hand over the physical possession of the land to Mulkh Raj. However, even after 15 years of the court order, police had failed to identify the land which, surprisingly, was placed on their superdnama.
In his petition, the complainant alleged that police role in his case was more of a "despotic" ruler than the protector of people and their properties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
