This revision petition has arisen and directed against the order dated 15.11.97 passed by Smti C. Baruah, Executive Magistrate, Guwahati in Misc Case 242m/ 94 under section 145/146 CrPC. A proceeding under section 145/146 CrPC was drawn up at the instance of the 1st party, in respect of a dispute likely to cause breach of peace concerning a dispute of land. On the strength of an application filed by the opposite party/1st party the proceeding was initiated by the learned Executive Magistrate on 10.6.94 and ordered for attachment of the disputed land measuring 2 katha covered by Dag No.311 Patta No.60 in village Fatasil Nonke Village, Mouza Jalukbari. 2nd party submitted written statement and witnesses were examined on behalf of both the parties.

2. On consideration of materials on records and upon hearing the parties, the learned Executive Magistrate by its order dated 19.12.97 declared the possession in favour of the first party. Hence the revision petition.

3. Mr. Z. Kamar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd party/ petitioner has submitted that the learned Executive Magistrate acted in most illegal fashion by drawing up of a proceeding in a most casual manner without application of mind. In support of his contention the learned counsel pointed out to the note of the Executive Magistrate dated 10.6.94 asking the Bench Assistant to draw up a proceeding under section 145 CrPC read with section 146 CrPC. Mr. Z. Kamar, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order of the learned Executive Magistrate is per-se arbitrary and capricious for want of any reasoning as to how the learned Court reached the conclusion that the 1st party in possession of the disputed land. Mr. Kamar, the learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the impugned order of the learned Executive Magistrate declaring possession of the land in favour of 1st party was wholly without jurisdiction so much so in the instant case petitioners were forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed from the land in question. In such a situation the Executive Magistrate could exercise his jurisdiction only when the wrongful dispossession was made within the period specified in sub-section (4) of section 145 CrPC. The learned Magistrate in the instant case since fail to address his mind in the absence of such finding could not have declared possession in favour of the first party submitted the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. Mr. Atul Chandra Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/1st party on the other hand submitted that the learned Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order on the basis of the materials on record. The finding of the learned Executive Magistrate is based on question of facts. The High Court in exercise of revisionary power normally shall not enter into the evaluation of the facts and come to a contrary finding on assessment of such facts. Inadequacy or insufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground for interference of the High Court in such matter. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the 1st party submitted that in fact the Executive Magistrate only on being satisfied decided to initiate the proceeding and asked the Bench Assistant to do the work. At any rate the order of initiation of proceeding was accepted by the 2nd party/petitioners and contested the case on merit. Mr. Atul Chandra Sarma, the learned counsel for the 1st party/opposite party further submitted that the forcible and wrongful dispossession was within two months next before the date on which the report of the police officer and other information was received by the Magistrate and the learned Executive Magistrate did not commit any error of jurisdiction. Mr. sarma, the learned counsel further submitted that the proceeding under section 145 CrPC is only in the nature of a police order and the Executive Magistrate declares only the right to possess on the disputed land, without reference to the marits of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document