sold the said land to the respondent no. 2 on 04.05.2007, which was actually in the share of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said land was in possession of the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 never came in possession of the same after its purchase vide sale deed dated 04.05.2007. Earlier a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated vide Misc. Case No. 121 of 2011 on the application of one Nikolas Tete against the ancestors of the petitioner namely Md. Afgani and others which was disposed of by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi on 16.12.2011 directing the parties to move before appropriate forum. Emanual Barla (the respondent no. 2) preferred an application for demarcation of the said land whereupon the Circle Officer, Tamar (Ranchi) issued notice as contained in memo no. 592(ii) dated 16.09.2020 directing the adjoining raiyats to remain present at the time of measurement scheduled to be held from 06.10.2020 to 08.10.2020. The respondent no.2 had also filed an application before the SubDivisional Magistrate, Bundu, Ranchi and on the basis of the said application, a proceeding being Case No. M-15/2019 was initiated under Section 144 Cr.P.C. The said authority, vide impugned order dated 19.09.2019, ordered to vacate the said land in favour of the respondent no.2 and restrained the second party (the petitioner and others) from entering the same by superseding his own earlier order dated 16.12.2011. It is also submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bundu, Ranchi failed to appreciate that the respondent no.2 had not brought on record any evidence to show his possession over the said land since the date of purchase. On the other hand, the petitioner had shown his physical possession over the ancestral landed property since 07.04.1934 till the date of dispossession. In the garb of demarcation of the said land, the respondent no. 2 has misused the entire government machineries and has forcefully dispossessed the petitioner. When the petitioner went to Tamar Police Station for lodging complaint against the respondent no. 2, no action was taken by the officer-in-charge of the said police station. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi also failed to appreciate that there was a written partition among the ancestors of the petitioner.
