Partly allowed

Chandra Bhadur Mahat Chetry v. Bani Kanta Borah

Gauhati HC2 Nov 2018Crl.Rev.P./20/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.PC, the Gauhati High Court set aside an order under Sections 145/146 Cr.PC. The court held the Sub-Divisional Magistrate erred in relying solely on an unexamined Circle Officer field verification report instead of evidence led by parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate set aside; matter remanded to hear parties afresh on evidence of possession.

Chandra Bhadur Mahat Chetry Vs Bani Kanta Borah — Landlord and Tenant | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010165572017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P. 20/2018

¶5

1:CHANDRA BHADUR MAHAT CHETRY

¶6

R/O MAHDHUA, PS-DHAKUAKHANA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶7

2: RAJESH CHETRY

¶8

S/O SRI CHANDRA BHADUR MAHAT CHETRY

¶9

R/O MAHDHUA PS-DHAKUAKHANA DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

1:BANI KANTA BORAH

¶12

R/O MADHUA, PS- DHAKUAKHANA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN787001

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. U DUTTA

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 02-11-2018

¶18

Heard Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Also heard learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. U. Dutta.

¶20

This is a criminal revision petition, filed under Sections 397/401 Crl.PC, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 11.4.2017, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhakuakhana, in Case No. 28/2015, under Sections 145/146 Cr.PC.

¶21

On perusal of the petition and the annexures furnished therewith including the

¶22

Page No.# 2/2

¶23

impugned order, and on hearing learned counsel for both sides, this court is of the view that the order was passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, aforesaid, not on the basis of the evidence led by the respective parties and on their respective claims, but he based his decision on a report of the Circle Officer issued on field verification of the disputed land. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in his evidence he has raised an issue about the identity of the disputed land. According to the petitioner, the land over which the respondent claims to have been in possession, is not the land disputed in the petition before the learned trial court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in the proceeding under Section 145 CrPC.

¶24

It appears, on perusal of the impugned order, that the aspect as regards the identity of the disputed land has not been answered in the order and the fact that a report of field verification of the Circle Officer has been relied upon by the learned Magistrate without examining him as witness and that to when Section 145 Cr.PC do not provide for obtaining a report as regards the possession of the particular plot of land.

¶25

The provisions of Section 145 Cr.PC makes it clear that a decision has to be rendered as to who is in possession of the disputed land 2 months prior to the investigation of the in the proceeding, on the basis of objection and affidavit/evidence led by the respective parties. In the instant case, by referring to the field verification report, apparently, the learned Magistrate has gone beyond the power given to him by the provisions of Section 145 CrPC. Therefore, the impugned order, referred to above, is set aside with a direction to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to hear both the parties afresh on the basis of the evidence/materials already available on record, and to record a finding on all aspects connected with the possession of the land in accordance with the possession of Section 145 Cr.PC.

¶26

With the above observations and direction, this petition stands disposed of.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Chandra Bhadur Mahat Chetry v. Bani Kanta Borah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Bhadur Mahat Chetry v. Bani Kanta Borah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Prabin Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Azmal Hussain Laskar @ Jamal Uddin Laskar Vs Marufa Sultana Mazumder and 4 Ors.

MD Mofijul Karim @ Rahul @ Babul and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ansarul Alam Vs Nilofa Yashmin and Anr.

Sri Arun Kanti Das Vs Smt. Swapna Das and Anr.

Prodip Roy Vs Ratna Roy