IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 145 – Life of order passed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. is conterminous with passing of decree by a Civil Court.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

The petitioner, by way of present writ application, has challenged the order, dated 09.07.2021, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura, by which in the light of the order, dated 28.11.2016, passed in Case No. 832M of 2013, deputed the Circle Officer, Sheikhpura, as Magistrate, to ensure law and order situation, at the time of construction of boundary wall upon the subject land by the respondent no. 7, namely, Hargouri Mahto. The Station House Officer, Sheikhpura Police Station, was also directed to depute the police force in order to provide necessary help for construction of the boundary wall.

2. The relevant facts, culled out from the statement made on behalf of the parties, is that the disputed land was recorded in the name of one Tuna Mahto, having a total area of 85 decimals, situated at Village Jamalpur, Thana No. 167, Khata No. 13, Khesra No. 159. The only son of Tuna Mahto, namely, Ganauri Mahto, sold the land in question to one Barkatullah on 25.03.1932. On 01.03.1946 and 12.03.1948, said Barkatullah sold the entire land of 85 decimals to one Somari Devi, who happened to be the maternal grand mother of respondent no. 7. On 25.06.1954, Somari Devi sold 16.5 decimals out of the 85 decimals to one Budhan Mahto, who was the son of Ganauri Mahto. Somari Devi was thus left with only 68.5 decimals of land. On 14.07.1964, Somari Devi executed a registered deed of gift for 68 decimals of land in favour of her only daughter, namely, Parwati Devi, the mother of respondent no. 7. On 12.02.1981, Budhan Mahto sold 7 decimals of land out of 16.5 decimals of land to Naresh Prasad. Thereafter, Budhan Mahto was left with only 9.5 decimals of land, but as per the case of the parties, he was in possession of 10 decimals of land.

3. The petitioner claims the entire land as his ancestral property; whereas the respondent no. 7 claims title and possession through his mother to the extent of 68 decimals of land, gifted to her mother by her maternal grandmother.

4. Budhan Mahto is the grandfather of the petitioner. In the year 2010, Case No. 542M of 2010, under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was initiated by the sons of Budhan Mahto, in which they lost and a title suit, bearing Title Suit No. 21 of 2010, was thereafter filed, which also got dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of Title Suit No. 21 of 2010, they filed Title Appeal No. 06 of 2012, which, too, was dismissed.

5. Again, one Tarkeshwar Mahto, father of the petitioner, filed Case No. 832M of 2013, under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, claiming himself to be the khatiyani raiyat of the land in question and possession over the same through his ancestors.

6. After appearance of the second party in the case, the proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and finally, the same was decided on 28.11.2016 by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura in favour of respondent no. 7, wherein it has been held that 68 decimals of land is in possession of respondent no. 7. The petitioner was directed not to disturb the possession of respondent no. 7 until this order is set aside by the competent court.

7. The said order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura, was challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2019, before the Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura. During the pendency of the criminal revision application, the respondent no. 7 filed Title Suit No. 51 of 2020 on 19.08.2020, which was not for declaration of title and possession over the entire disputed land; rather, for declaration of sale deed pertaining to Schedule No. 4 of the plaint executed by the defendants, including the petitioner, as void ab initio, having total area of 9.5 decimals of land and for declaring the title and possession upon Schedule 4 land.

8. Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2019 was heard and dismissed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, vide order, dated 26.11.20