The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking possession of land. Finding the impugned order did not fall under Section 145(4) proviso and (6) Cr.P.C., the court dismissed the application without adjudication, allowing other remedies.
The writ application was disposed of without further adjudication; petitioner directed to approach other remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ No.955 of 2009
====================================================== Suresh Bhagat, S/O Late Ram Prasad Bhagat, Resident of Village+ At & P.O. Durgapur, P.S. Bhawanipur, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate-Cum- Collector, Purnea. 2. The District Magistrate-Cum- Collector, Purnea. 3. The Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Dhamdaha, Purnea. 4. The Circle Officer, Bhawanipur, District Purnea. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Purnea. 6. The Officer-In-Charge, Bhawanipur Police Station, Bhawanipur, Purnea. 7. Umesh Mandal S/O Late Bhola Mandal. 8. Sudhir Mandal S/O Bhola Mandal, both resident of Bhawandevi Tola, P.S. Bhawanipur, District Purnea. 9. Gujo Devi W/O Late Budho Mandal 10. Arvind Mandal S/O Late Budho Mandal 11. Kala Kumari D/O Late Budho Mandal. All residents of Bhasvandevi Tola, P.S. Bhawanipur, District- Purnea. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL ORDER 16 22-08-2013 Heard learned counsels representing the parties. This is an application seeking direction to the respondents to ensure possession of the petitioner over land bearing Khata No. 1670, Khesra No. 4530 having an area of 2 kathas, Thana No. 185/2 at Mouza Bhawanipur, P.S. Bhawanipur, District- Purnea in the light of order dated 25th November, 1997 passed by the Respondent, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhamdaha, Purnea in Case No. 55 (M) of 1994 in a proceeding initially instituted under section 144 of the Cr.P.C. subsequently converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the Cr.P.C.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.955 of 2009 (16) dt.22-08-2013
2
finding undisputedly the order impugned of the S.D.M. is not under ambit of the provisions of Section 145 (4) proviso and (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as such:-
“145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace- (1) ………………………….
(2) ………………………….
(3) ………………………….
(4) “The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute.
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully 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 sub-section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1).”
(5) …………………..
(6) “(a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as being in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub.section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.
(b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3).” (7)……………………
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.955 of 2009 (16) dt.22-08-2013
3
(8) ……………………….. (9) ………………………… (10) ……………………….
there appears no reason to entertain this writ application, accordingly it is hereby disposed of without further adjudication. However, petitioner is at liberty to avail other remedies available to him and in the event of such initiation of any other proceedings including Civil Suit, it may, taking into consideration long drawn litigation between the parties, proceed expeditiously
and conclude at the earliest.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J)
Abhay/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate falls within the ambit of Section 145(4) proviso and (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh Bhagat
State Of Bihar
District Magistrate-Cum- Collector, Purnea
Akhilesh Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
