Point of Law: Section 145 of the Code authorizes the Executive Magistrate to take cognizance of the dispute and settle the same by holding an enquiry into possession as distinguished from right to possession or title.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This revision petition under Section 401, read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 18.11.2015, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Bokajan in Karbi Anglong, in M.R. Case No. 26/2012 (old M.R. Case No. 15/2001).

3. It is to be mentioned here that vide the impugned order, dated 18.11.2015, the learned Executive Magistrate, Bokajan in Karbi Anglong has dismissed the M.R. Case No. 26/2012 and declared possession of the disputed land in favour of the second party and directed the Officer-in-Charge of Bokajan Police Station to hand over the possession of the disputed land in favour of the second party.

4. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition may be briefly stated as under:

“On 24.02.1998, the petitioner/first party, Smt. Norbodia Gour has mortgaged 8 Bighas of land in favour of the respondent No. 2, Sri Omprakash Jaiswal, on consideration of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. But, he never took possession of the land and allowed the petitioner to occupy, possess and cultivate the land in ‘adhi’ system. Thereafter, the petitioner with a view to redeem the mortgaged land, decided to sell one bigha of land out of 8 Bigha, at a price of Rs. 65,000/- @ Rs. 13,000/- per Katha. The respondent No. 2 expressed his willingness to purchase her one Bigha land and accordingly, a sale deed was executed between the parties and as the petitioner is a poor and illiterate lady, the sale deed was prepared by the respondent No. 2 and on good faith; the petitioner had put her signature on the sale deed, prepared by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000/- to the petitioner, after deducting the mortgage amount of Rs. 20,000/-. But, he paid only Rs. 13,000/- and took possession of one Bigha of land but subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 2 was trying to obtain Patta in respect of another 1 Bigha 4 Katha 4 Lessas of land, by way of forged sale deed. Then the petitioner lodged a complaint on 15.12.2000, upon which the C.R. Case No. 1131/2000, under Section 468/420/406 IPC, has been registered with the Magistrate 1st Class, Diphu and the learned Magistrate, then issued summons to the respondent No. 2, vide order dated 20.12.2000. Thereafter on 18.05.2001, when the petitioner sent her farmers to plough her land, measuring 7 Bighas, the respondent No. 2 illegally entered into the said land and claimed that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 2 Bigha 4 Katha and 4 Lessa, out of 8 Bighas of land and thereby sent back her farmers, after assaulting them. Thereafter she filed two petitions on 22.05.2001 and 25.05.2001, before the Dy. Commissioner, Diphu in Karbi Anglong and on 25.05.2001, the respondent No. 2 illegally entered into and took possession of the disputed land and started preparing the land for cultivation.

Thereafter, on 26.06.2021, the petitioner filed a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. before the learned Addl. Dy. Commissioner, Diphu in Karbi Anglong, upon which the M.R. Case No. 15/2001, has been registered, and later on, the same was transferred to the Court of learned SDO (C), Bokajan and the same was renumbered as M.R. Case No. 26/2012. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another petition before the learned Magistrate on 05.07.2001 and upon the said petition, the learned Magistrate has attached the disputed land. Thereafter, on 26.02.2002, the respondent No. 2 objected in passing the attachment order and thereafter, the learned Court has called for a report and accordingly, police submitted the report on 29.03.2002. The respondent No. 2, thereafter, filed written statement on 28.11.2002 and after examination of the witnesses and hearing argument of learned Advocates for both sides, the learned Court below had dismissed the petition, declaring the possession in favour