Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri. Goutam Ghosh @ Radhu, son of late Manmohan Ghosh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
Crl. Rev. P.49 of 2017
Decided On : 29-06-2018
The Magistrate has exceeded the jurisdiction as conferred upon the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. In passing the impugned order dated 29.07.2017, the Magistrate has decided two issues which did not fall within his jurisdiction. Those aspects or issues are the title of the land and the right to possess the land.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner has asserted that he is the owner and possessor of the said land by virtue of the will. On 21.07.2017, the petitioner submitted a statement of facts [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] by asserting his claim over the said property. No hearing had taken place on 21.07.2017 or thereafter. According to the petitioner, suddenly on 29.07.2017, the District Magistrate, West Tripura Agartala passed the final order [Annexure-7 to the writ petition].
Finding of the Court:
The Magistrate has observed that he had ordered an inquiry through Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar and the Officer-in-Charge of West Agartala police station and he had received the inquiry reports. The Officer-in-Charge, West Agartala police station along with the report submitted a copy of the unregistered gift deed dated 22.04.2010 executed by Sri Narayan Debbarma for transfer of the land under reference in favour of his sister Smt. Anjali Debbarma.
Issues: 1. Whether the disputed landed property is under any legal possession of any party to the dispute or anybody else ; 2. Whether there is an apprehension of breach of peace and tranquility arising due to the dispute in connection with the instant landed property.
Ratio Decidendi: The Magistrate can exercise the jurisdiction under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. only when he is satisfied from the report of police officer or upon other information that a dispute which exists is likely to cause a breach of peace concerning any land or water or the boundary thereof within his local jurisdiction, after making an inquiry in the manner as provided under section 145 of the Cr.P.C., if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has “forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of the police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after the date or before the date of his order under Sub Section (1), he may treat the party, so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under Sub- Section (1)."
Final Decision: The impugned order is set aside and quashed. But the parties are to observe the following directions till the dispute as latent in the controversy are determined or settled.
This is a petition under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the legality of the order dated 29.07.2017 delivered in Case No.01 of 2017 by the District Magistrate, West Tripura District, Agartala. The said order dated 29.07.2017 has been passed in a proceeding drawn under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short, Cr.P.C. For purpose of reference, Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder :
“145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace.
(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression" land or water" includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.
(3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute,
(4) The Magistrate shall then, without, reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub- section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub- section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub- section (1).
(5) Nothing in this section' shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under subsection (1) shall be final.
(6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub- section (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub- section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.
(b) The order made under this sub- section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub- section (3).
(7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto.
(8) If the Magistrate is of opin
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
