Dismissed

Puribala Kalita v. Ramesh Kalita and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Jan 2021Crl.Pet./902/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a revision petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order which set aside an Executive Magistrate's declaration of land possession. The court held that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction as dispossession occurred outside the two-month window specified in Section 145(4) CrPC. The revision was thus devoid of merit and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed and disposed of.

Puribala Kalita Vs Ramesh Kalita and 2 Ors. — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010197322018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet./902/2018

¶5

PURIBALA KALITA

¶6

W/O LATE NAREN KALITA, VILLAGE AND PO PANITEMA, PS KAMALPUR, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781101

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RAMESH KALITA AND 2 ORS.

¶9

S/O BISHAY KALITA, VILLAGE ATHIABOI, PO PUB BURKA, KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781101

¶10

2:RAJANI KALITA S/O BISHAY KALITA VILLAGE ATHIABOI PO PUB BURKA KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781101

¶11

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAMUAH

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 05-01-2021

¶18

Heard Mr. B. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶19

The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 20.07.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup at Rangia in Criminal Revision Case No. 30/2017 arising out of the order dated 24.08.2017, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate on 24.08.2017 in Case No. 45 of 2014.

¶20

The revision petitioner herein filed an application under Sections 145/146 of the Cr. P.C. alleging dispossession from the disputed land and on the basis of the said application, the learned Executive Magistrate conducted an enquiry and eventually passed the final order dated 24.08.2017 declaring possession in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and by the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

¶21

On perusal of the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate and also the application filed by the petitioner, it is found that admittedly the petitioner was dispossessed from the disputed land on 11.1.2014 and the application under Sections 145/146 CrPC was filed before the Executive Magistrate on 15.05.2014, meaning thereby the learned Executive Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged dispossession after four months. Therefore, admittedly the petitioner was dispossessed from the disputed land four months before the application filed before the learned Executive Magistrate. Section 145 (4) of the Cr.P.C. provides that when any party is found to have been forcefully or wrongly dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under Seub-Section (1) he may treat the parties so dispossessed as if that party has been in possession on the date of order under sub-Section (1). Therefore, when the petitioner was dispossessed four months

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

before approaching the Magistrate under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to declare possession of the petitioner or to treat him to be in possession who was dispossessed four months next before the date on which the application was filed before the learned Executive Magistrate.

¶24

As the learned Magistrate passed the order declaring possession of the petitioner without jurisdiction, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly set aside the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, and as such the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge calls for no interference by this court.

¶25

Accordingly, the revision petition is found devoid of any merit and dismissed and disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Puribala Kalita v. Ramesh Kalita and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puribala Kalita v. Ramesh Kalita and 2 Ors.

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

Maheswar Hira Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Kalpana Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sri Kalpana Das and Anr. Vs Sri Bablu Suklabaidya and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Roy Vs Bibha Rani Das @ Roy

Bijay Sankar Sen and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

M/S. North East State Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs M/S. Kanta Devi Jain and Anil Kumar Jain and 2 Ors.