Landowner's Section 133 CrPC application over a two-foot passage was rejected as maintainable only under Section 147. The High Court held wrong provision citation does not vitiate rights, quashed the rejection, but noted a civil suit is the efficacious remedy.
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 REVISION No.1333 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-
======================================================
Madan Bind, Son of Late Dashrath Bind, Resident of Village- Baghwanpur, P.S.- Chainpur, District- Kaimur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER
10 05-02-2024
The petitioner is owner of a piece of land. According
to the petitioner, there is a two-feet-wide passage between the residential house of the petitioner and the adjacent land through which the petitioner had easementary right. The second party, claiming himself to be purchaser of the said adjacent land, from the coparceners of the petitioner disputed existence of easementary right over the said two-feet-wide passage, stating inter alia that in his deed of conveyance, there was no existence of passage mentioned therein and therefore the petitioner was obstructed from using the said passage. This laid the petitioner to file an application under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. The
learned Trial Judge vide his order dated 14th of September, 2017, which is impugned in the instant revision rejected the said application on the ground that the application was filed under
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1333 of 2018(10) dt.05-02-2024 2/2
Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. and not under Section 147 of the said Act. Therefore, the application is said to be not maintainable.
aside.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/- U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application filed under Section 133 instead of Section 147 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable for a passage/easement dispute.
Whether the Executive Magistrate could reject the proceeding solely on that technical ground.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Madan Bind
State of Bihar
Bharat Bind
Bibek Chaudhuri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
