T. Nandakumar Singh, J. -

By this criminal petition under Section 482 read with Section 483 and Section 401 of the Code of Crminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), the petitioner is challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia dated 27.11.2008 passed in Criminal Revision No. 25 (2) of 2008, dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner and upholding the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, Margherita dated 16.05.2008 in Case No. 56 of 2007.

2. Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-respondent, at the outset, contended that the present criminal petition being the second revision petition, filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, i.e. impugned judgment dated 27.11.2008, upholding the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, Margherita dated 16.05.2008, is liable to be rejected at the threshold inasmuch as under Section 397 (3) of the CrPC the present petitioner, who had already filed a revision petition against the order of the learned ' Executive Magistrate dated 16.05.2008 before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge also upheld the said order of the learned Executive Magistrate by the impugned order, cannot file the second revision petition before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. P. Kakati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-respondent.

4. The fact of the petitioner's case, tersely put up in the present petition, by neglecting theunnecessary details, is recapitulated.

The petitioner came into possession of the land measuring 2 Bighas covered by Dag No. 147 at No. 4 Makum Pathar, Mouja-Makum, District-Tinsukia, Assam and on 03.12.2000 the petitioner acquired the possessory right from Sri Atul Sharma, S/O. Late Tikeswar Sharma of Margherita T.E. by paying compensatory expenses to him vide deed dated 03.12.2000 signed by the owner. As the petitioner suffered from serious illness and for arrangement of his expenditure, he relinquished a part of the said land, i.e., the disputed land, measuring 1 Katha 10 Lechas in the North West portion in favour of the opposite party-respondent and as a result, the petitioner was left with 1 Bigha, 3 Kathas, 2 Lechas. When the petitioner visited the land on 17.06.2007, he found that his land was undisturbed and the fencing was in intact. However, on 17.07.2007 when he visited his land again he found that opposite party-respondent encroached the said land (hereinafter referred to as 'disputed land') belonging to the petitioner by removing the fencing. When the petitioner protested against the said illegal encroachment and wanted to enter into land, the opposite party-respondent violently resisted and threatened with dire consequences and forcefully disposed the petitioner from the disputed land. The petitioner filed an application for drawing up a proceeding under Section 145 of CrPC in respect of the disputed land against the opposite party-respondent and also for declaring possession of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Margherita.

5. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Margherita called the report from the concerned O/C, i.e. the O/C of Margherita Police Station, as to whether there was imminent breach of peace as a result of the dispute in possession of the disputed land and the police submitted the report dated 22.07.2007 to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Margherita. The relevant portion of the report, which would be pertinent for deciding the present petition, is quoted hereunder :-

"During enquiry, visited P.O. and found that one bamboo fencing north side of the house of 2nd party member which is allegedly entrance of 1 st party member. During enquiry, examined the 2nd party member who stated that the disputed land is under his occupation last eight years and paying revenue regularly. The 2nd party member also stated that, he purchased the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document