IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.174 of 2002
(Against the order dated 29.11.2001 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Majhaul in Case No.1623 (Misc.) of 1981)
==================================================
1. Bishwa Mohan Prasad Singh (now dead), son of late Ramautar
Prasad Singh
(a) Chandani Devi, wife of Late Bishwa Mohan Prasad.
(b) Manoj Kumar Singh.
(c) Saroj Kumar Singh.
(d) Pankaj Kumar Singh
(e) Bhoosan Kumar Singh
(f) Roshan Kumar Singh.
(g) Kamini Sinha, wife of Sri Birendra Kumar Singh,
resident of village-Sukki, Patepur, P.S.-Patepur, District-
Muzaffarpur.
(h) Kumkum Devi, wife of Sri Arvind Singh, resident of
village-Bathnaha, P.S.-Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur.
(i) Paso Devi, wife of Sri Shushil Kumar Singh, resident of
village-Mozamma, P.S.-Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur.
(j) Poonam Sinha, wife of Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, resident
of village- Phulwaria, P.S.-Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur.
(k) Pinki Kumari, wife of Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, resident of
village-Kafain, P.S.-Hathauri, Distt.-Muzaffarpur.
(l) Rinki Kumari, wife of Sri Shashi Bhushan Singh, resident
of village-Jasauli, P.S.-Motipur, District- Muzaffarpur.
(All sons and daughters of late Bishwa Mohan Prasad Singh,
resident of village-Nayanagar, P.S.-Hasanpur, District-
Sitamarhi)
…. …. Petitioners
Versus
1. Banshi Tanti (since died), son of Bhattu Tanti.
(a) Ram Dulari Devi.
(b) Bikhari Das.
(c) Lal Dhari Das.
(d) Uma Devi.
(e) Kamini Devi.
2. Bhikhari Tanti
3. Lalo Tanti, both sons of Banshi Tanti.
(All residents of village-Purpathar, P.S.-Khodawandpur,
District- Begusarai)
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.174 of 2002 dt.22-09-2011 2
…. …. 2nd Party-Opposite Parties
==================================================
Appearance:
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Bhupendra Narain Sinha
: Mr. Shailendra Kumar.
Advocate for the Opp. Parties : Mrs. Meera Kumari
: Mr. B.N.Sinha ‘Suman’
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL)
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The 1st party-petitioners have preferred this revision
application against the order dated 29.11.2001 passed by
the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Majhaul in Case
No.1623 (Misc.) of 1981 by which the possession over the
land in dispute has been declared under Section 145
Cr.P.C. in favour of the 2nd party-opposite party.
The land in dispute is appertaining to Mauza-
Purpathar in Tauzi No.1233, Khata No.38, Plot Nos.24,
26, 33, 114, 115, 127 and 128 measuring 4 Bighas, 8
Kathas and 8 Dhurs, but on the spot these lands are
meansuring 4 Bighas 11 Kathas and 8 dhoors.
The facts rising to this application are that an
application was filed by the petitioner (original) on
10.09.1981 before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.174 of 2002 dt.22-09-2011 3
Majhaul to initiate a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
On which, a report was called for from the concerned
police station. After receipt of the report, the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section
144 Cr.P.C. on 16.09.1981 and subsequently, it was
converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on
14.11.1981.
The case of the 1st party petitioner is that the land in
dispute alongwith other lands were sold in auction on rent
suit and purchased by the then landlords Sri Jagarnath
Prasad Singh and Sri Balbhadra Prasad Singh, resident of
village-Nayanagar, vide Case No.93/1910 and Case
No.48/1911. The auction sale was confirmed by the 1 st
court of Munsif, Begusarai on 21.07.1911 and delivery of
possession was affected over the lands in dispute and other
lands on 16.11.1911. Both the auction purchasers
partitioned their lands privately including the lands in
dispute, which, were allotted to the share of Jagarnath
Prasad Singh, who came in possession of the same. After
the death of Jagarnath Pd. Singh, his only son Ramautar
Singh inherited the disputed land and came in possession
thereof. The said Ramautar Singh settled the disputed
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.174 of 2002 dt.22-09-2011 4
lands by virtue of Hukumnana dated 1st Asin, 1356 F.S. in
favour of Smt. Chandani Devi, wife of the petitioner and
since then she is coming in exclusive possession of the
same. She was paying rent to the ex-landlords and after
vesting of Zamindari her name was mutated in the revenue
records of the Anchal and she is paying rent regularly and
rent receipts in proof of the payment of rent were regularly
issued in her favour.
The case of the 2nd party-opposite party is that the
lands, in question, were recorded in the name of their
ancestors in the cadastral survey and after the death of the
recorded tenants, they have inherited the lands being their
heirs and claimed to be in possession thereof. They have
further claimed that the recorded tenants have executed
several mortgage deeds with respect to the lands in dispute
in favour of the relatives of the petitioner as well as in
favour of the then landlords. The Ex-landlord of the Tauzi
had submitted the name of the recorded tenant in the
Jamabandi return submitted at the time of vesting of
Jamindari and later rent receipts were also issued vide
Mutation Case No.3/15 of 1980-81 (Annexure-B to the
counter affidavit of the opposite party). Thus the opposite
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.174 of 2002 dt.22-09-2011 5
party claimed their possession over the disputed lands on
the basis of redemption of mortgaged as well as on the
basis of recent mutation order passed in their favour.
Both the parties adduced their oral as well as
documentary evidence in support of their respective claims
before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has
found and declared the possession of the 2nd party over the
land in dispute vide order dated 22.04.1988 (Annexure-C
to the counter affidavit of the opposite party). The
petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 22.04.1988
passed by the learned Executive Magistrate in Cr. Rev.
No.243/88, which was dismissed on 30.03.1994
confirming the order of the learned Magistrate (Annexure-
D to the counter affidavit of the opposite party).
Thereafter, the petitioner challenged both the orders of
learned Executive Magistrate as well as the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Begusarai in
Cr.W.J.C.No.554/94 before the Patna High Court, which
was allowed vide order dated 4.07.1995 and the case was
remanded to the learned Magistrate with direction that he
will afford an opportunity to the parties to prove their
documents and thereafter he will dispose of the proceeding
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.174 of 2002 dt.22-09-2011 6
in accordance with law (Annexure-E to the counter
affidavit). The opposite party filed S.L.P. in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide S.L.P. (Cr.) No.356/96, which was
later on dismissed (Annexure-G to the counter affidavit).
In the meantime, the petitioner filed a petition in Misc.
Case No.1523/81 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the
learned S.D.M., Majhaul, Begusarai. The learned
Magistrate passed an order on 23.01.1996 against the
opposite party and declared the possession of the petitioner
(Annexure-H to the counter affidavit). The opposite party
challenged the aforesaid order dated 23.01.1996 vide Cr.
Rev. No.14/97 before the learned Sessions Judge, which
was heard and allowed vide order dated 30.07.1999 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.VII, Begusarai
and remanded the case before the learned S.D.M. for
disposal in accordance with law. The learned S.D.M.,
Majhaul passed the order on 29.01.2001 in favour of the
opposite party, which has been challenged in this criminal
revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the opposite party.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.174 of 2002 dt.22-09-2011 7
the learned Magistrate has not considered the oral as well
as documentary evidence properly. He has further
submitted that in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. a
Magistrate has to peruse the documents and affidavits filed
in the case. The word ‘perused’ of course means to
examine critically.
In support of his contention, he has relied upon a
decision in the case of Bhola Kumar and Ors. Vs.
Bhubneshwar Singh reported in 1968 BLJR 327.
The learned counsel for the 2nd party-opposite party
has submitted that it is apparent from the impugned order
that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence
adduced on behalf of both the parties. The documents have
also been exhibited and marked as Exhibits on behalf of
both the parties. The 1st party-petitioners have produced
nine witnesses and the 2nd party has adduced seven
witnesses. The learned Magistrate has considered the oral
as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of
both the parties and has come to the conclusion that the
second party opposite party are in possession of the land in
dispute and their possession has been declared and it has
also been made clear that the order will remain in force
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.174 of 2002 dt.22-09-2011 8
until any order is passed by any competent court.
After hearing the learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the
contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd party opposite
party is correct. The learned Magistrate has considered the
oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of
both the parties and has come to the conclusion that the
second party opposite party is in possession of the land in
dispute.
Considering the facts and circumstances stated
above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order. This petition is dismissed.
( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated the 22nd September, 2011
NAFR/V.K. Pandey