IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that possession disputes under Section 145 Cr.PC must demonstrate a likelihood of public disturbance to invoke jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Azad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed an application u/s 397 read with Section 401 and 482 Cr.PC against the impugned order dated 17/08/2020 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Rangia, in case No. 12/2015 u/s 145/146 Cr.PC declaring the possession of the disputed two plots of land measuring 5 Bighas 4 Katahs 4 Lechas covered by dag Nos. 908 and 633 of Touzi Patta No. 259 of village Barkukuria under Panduri Mouja of Rangia Revenue Circle in favour of the second party/respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he owned and possessed the aforesaid plots of land for more than 20 years and he used to cultivate over the said plot of land to earn his livelihood. The petitioner also applied for allotment of the said plots of land and it is reported by the Circle Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer (herein after SDO) that the petitioner is in possession of the said land and sent the proposal for allotment. In the meantime, the respondents with some miscreants entered into the land and tried to disposes the petitioner and in this regard, the petitioner lodged an FIR before the Rangia P.S. Thereafter, a petition was filed before the Executive Magistrate, Rangia being Case N0. 12/2015 u/s 145/146 Cr.PC praying for attachment of the land and to restrain the respondent to enter into the land illegally and forcefully with a view to dispossess the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the Touzi pattadar of the entire land measuring 05 Bighas 04 Kthas 04 Lechas covered by Dag No. 908 (2B-1K-15L) and Dag No. 633 (3B-2K-9L) of Touzi Patta No. 259 of village Barkukuria and used to pay the land revenue of the said land regularly. The petitioner paid the revenue of the said land on 17/11/2014 for the year 2014 and 10/08/2015 for the year 2015.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that though the land is under the possession of the petitioner but the respondents fraudulently applied for the allotment of the said land. But the SDO(Civil) vide his letter dated 30/10/2014 informed the Circle Officer that due to the transfer of the possession of the land, the allotment proposal of Jagat Kalita and Madhab Kalita was cancelled. Hence, the proposal has been sent in the name of Tarani Saikai who is now in the physical possession over the plots of land. From the said letter, it is clear that the respondents are no way in possession of the said land.

6. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently the Circle Officer, Rangia, through a letter informed SDO (Civil), Rangia regarding proposal of the aforesaid land, wherein it is stated that the allotment proceeding being No. 161/ 10640 has been cancelled from the name of the applicant as because the possession of the said land has been transferred and hence the land remains in earlier position as government ceiling land. However, it is reflected in the said order that the present petitioner is still in possessing and cultivating the said land.

7. The allegation against the respondents is that on 01/03/2015 at about 9:30 a.m., the respondents along with 40/50 miscreants entered into the schedule land of the petitioner illegally and destroyed the crops and farm house with a view to dispossess the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant case before the Executive Magistrate but the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the petitioner that the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land and passed the order declaring possession of the disputed land in favour of the respondents which is liable to be set aside.

8. Against the prayer of the petitioner, the respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition by stating that the father of the respondent No. 1 had owned and possessed the alleged disputed land since 1970 by virtue of their poss