JUDGMENT

D.P. Uniyal , J. - This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge of Rampur recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate on 16-9-1964 directing delivery of certain plots to Dhumi Khan and one Smt. Samia be quashed.

2. One Dhumi Khan applied for proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. against six persons on the allegation that they were trying to interfere with his possession over certain agricultural plots. It is no longer in controversy that each of the six parties claimed to be in possession of separate parcels of land in their own right independently of each other. Before the Magistrate an objection was raised that the proceedings under Sec. 145 were misconceived and that the case ought to be thrown out on the ground of multifariousness. Without deciding the objection so raised the Magistrate referred the dispute to the Munsif who held that Dhumi Khan was in possession of all the plots except two, the latter of which were found to be in possession of one Smt. Samia.

3. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the applicants, has supported the reference made by the Sessions Judge. He contends that the proceedings initiated in this case were wholly bad and had caused serious prejudice to the parties. It has been submitted by him that there were a number of persons against whom proceedings had been taken; each of these persons had claimed an independent right over specific parcels of land. There was nothing common between the parties inter se. The right claimed by each of them was based on evidence which was not common to the others. Thus there were several disputes each of which had nothing in common and ought to have been the subject-matter of separate proceedings.

4. The learned counsel has referred to Radhashyam Patri v. Banka Rangadhar Panda, A.I.R. 1962 Orissa 161 wherein Narasimham, C.J. pointed out that when there are several disputes in respect of separate parcels of land and the parties claim distinct parcels of land to be in their possession, it is neither proper nor legal to lump all the cases in one proceeding. I respectfully agree with the observations of the learned Chief Justice. I am clearly of the opinion that in a case like this where the various plots claimed by Dhumi Khan were in possession of different parties who claimed possession over them under different title and there was nothing common as between the different contestants, it was wholly illegal to take recourse to the provisions of Sec. 145 against all of them in one proceeding.

5. For the reasons given above I am of the opinion that this reference must be accepted.

6. I accordingly accept the reference and set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 16-9-1964 and quash the proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P.C.