The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority and limitations of the Executive Magistrate in deciding possession of disputed land under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. S. V. Darang, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, praying for quashing of the impugned dismissal order, dated 09.08.2021, passed by the learned District & Session’s Judge, Ziro, and order, dated 08.06.2021, in CR. Case No. 08/2016 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Ziro.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that 145 Cr.P.C proceeding was initiated by the Executive Magistrate, Ziro against the petitioner, private respondent and the forest Department on 29.12.2016 and without following the proper procedure, the eviction order was passed on 29.11.2017 by the Executive Magistrate, Ziro against the petitioner, directing him to remove the standing structures of the petitioner in the disputed land within 15 days from the date of the order. The petitioner than approach this Court in the form of writ petition being WP(C)814(AP)2017 wherein, this Court was pleased to set aside and quashed the eviction order, dated 29.11.2017, issued by the learned Executive Magistrate, Ziro vide its order, dated 11.09.2018, with a direction to the learned Executive Magistrate, Ziro to proceed with the matter afresh by complying all the provisions as stipulated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. However, under political pressure on the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro, who was holding the Office of the Executive Magistrate, Ziro passed the eviction order against the petitioner by abusing the judicial power conferred on the Court and also by violating the order, dated 11.09.2018, passed by this Court in WP(C)814(AP)/2017. The learned Executive Magistrate, Ziro passed the order during the pandemic period of Corona, though, all the Courts works were suspended in all trial Courts of the entire Arunachal Pradesh and, accordingly, disposed the matter on 08.06.2021 during the period of the lock down, evicting the petitioner from the disputed land.

4. On being aggrieved with the impugned order, dated 08.06.2021, passed in the CR. Case No. 08/2016, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Ziro, the petitioner approached before the learned District & Session’s Court, Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, in the form of CRP No. 03/2021. But the learned District & Session’s Court, Ziro made an observation that there is no illegality, impropriety and perversity in the impugned order, dated 08.06.2021, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Ziro and dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition (CRP) ex-parte against the petitioner vide its order, dated 08.09.2021. After the order passed in the CRP by the learned District & Session’s Judge, the Deputy Commissioner in the capacity of the District Magistrate has passed the eviction order on 12.08.2021 against the petitioner to demolish the dwelling house and other permanent structures of the petitioner without serving any proper notice. On being aggrieved by the order of eviction as well as the order passed by the learned District & Session’s Judge, upholding the order of the learned Executive Magistrate, dated 08.06.2021, passed in the CR Case No. 08/2016, the petitioner filed this petition for setting aside and quashing of the same.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the learned Executive Magistrate passed the order of eviction was under the proceeding of 145 Cr.P.C, and also illegally declared the Title in favour of the private respondent which as per the law is not at all maintainable and liable to be set aside and quashed. The learned Executive Magistrate has no authority to evict the or decide the Title over the disputed land under the proceeding of 145 Cr.P.C. But the learned Session’s Judge did not consider all these aspects of the case and opined that no illegality, perversity or impropriety is made by the learned Executive Magistrate.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon