Judicial Magistrate Lacked Jurisdiction, Case Referred to Civil Court for Proper Adjudication
In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court has quashed a previous order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, which had granted interim possessory rights of a disputed immovable property to a claimant, ruling that the judicial magistrate acted beyond his jurisdiction. The decision, delivered by Justice Kausik Chanda, underscores the importance of jurisdictional boundaries between criminal and civil courts in matters involving immovable property.
The case originated from a dispute over the custody of a property located at 159, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata. The petitioner, Kalinath Sasmal, challenged the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which had handed over the keys and interim possessory rights of the property to the opposite party, who claimed to be the son of the deceased owner. The petitioner, asserting himself as the step-brother of the deceased, argued that the magistrate had no authority to adjudicate such disputes under the Police Act, 1861.
The court examined Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Police Act, 1861, and concluded that the term "property" under these sections is limited to movable property, money, or valuable securities and does not extend to immovable property. Justice Chanda highlighted that disputes over title or possession of immovable property are exclusively within the domain of civil courts and cannot be summarily resolved through criminal proceedings.
Furthermore, the High Court referred to the West Bengal Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 2012, as the appropriate statute for dealing with unclaimed immovable property, should it remain unclaimed. The Act mandates that such matters should be managed by the competent civil courts rather than through criminal jurisdiction.
The court directed the opposite party to return the keys to the Officer-in-Charge of Tollygunge Police Station and ordered the police to maintain custody as a neutral custodian until the matter is settled by a civil court. The court also clarified that it has not made any decision on the title, succession, or lawful possession of the property, leaving these issues to be resolved in the appropriate civil forum.
This judgment underscores the critical separation of powers between criminal and civil jurisdictions, reinforcing that questions of property title and possessory rights must be addressed through civil litigation to ensure a just and lawful resolution.
Bottom line:-
A Judicial Magistrate does not have jurisdiction under Sections 25 and 26 of the Police Act, 1861, to adjudicate disputes relating to interim possessory rights over immovable property.
Statutory provision(s): Police Act, 1861 Sections 25, 26, 27; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 457, 458, 459; West Bengal Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 2012
Kalinath Sasmal v. State Of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2904593
