Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Netlal Rai, Son of Siyalal Rai - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5026 of 2013 Arising Out of P.S. Case No.-null Year-null Thana-null District
Decided On : 08-09-2017
Section 482 - Possession of Land Dispute - Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 107, Section 145 - The court discussed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was directed against the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 191 of 2009. The court referred to the proceedings under Section 107 and Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and highlighted the legal principle that the right and title in respect to the land in dispute could only be decided by the competent civil court, and the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is beyond the power of the Executive Magistrate.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over possession of land in which a residential house was situated. The Sub Divisional Magistrate declared the possession of the first party over the land, which was affirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner contended that the possession declaration was illegal and relied on a previous court decision. The court noted that the right and title in respect to the land in dispute could only be decided by the competent civil court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was beyond the power of the Executive Magistrate and that the right and title in respect to the land in dispute could only be decided by the competent civil court.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the possession declaration and the applicability of the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was beyond the power of the Executive Magistrate and that the right and title in respect to the land in dispute could only be decided by the competent civil court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and quashed the impugned orders, declaring the possession in respect to the house situated over the land in dispute in favor of the first party as illegal.
This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 21.01.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No. 191 of 2009 by the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Sitamarhi, dismissing the aforesaid criminal revision of the petitioner, affirming the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pupari, Sitamarhi, in Case No. 416 of 1992, declaring the possession in respect to land in dispute over which the house is situated in favour of the first party/opposite party nos.2 to 7(c).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 7(c).
3. Learned counsel for the member of the second party/revisionist/ petitioner submits that, admittedly, over the land in dispute, the residential house is situated but the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pupari, Sitamarhi, illegally declared the possession of the members of the first party/opposite party nos.2 to 7 over the same in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 18.09.2009 passed in Case No. 416 of 1992, which is also affirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Sitamarhi, through the impugned order dated 21.01.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No.191 of 2009 illegally. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in respect to the land over which his house is situated, proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is bad in law and placed reliance on a decision in the case of Dilip Poddar Vs. State of Bihar, Amod Kumar and ors. {2001(3) PLJR 471}. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Title Suit No.325 of 2013 filed by the member of the second party/petitioner against the members of the first party/respondent nos.2 to 7 is also pending for the decision in the court of Sub Judge-I, Sitamarhi.
4. Admittedly, a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated in respect to the land in dispute, i.e., Plot No.270, area 6.5 decimals of Khata No.905 of village-Jhajhihat, Anchal, Circle-Pupari, District-Sitamarhi, over which the house was situated before the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pupari, Sitamarhi. The proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was converted under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, numbered as Case No. 416 of 1992, due to bona-fide land in dispute in which the members of the first party/opposite party nos.2 to 7 filed their written statement claiming the said land over which the house was situated on the basis of the Bharna executed by Jagdish Sah, one of the sons of Bhola Sah, who, later on, handed over the possession of the same to the members of the first party/opposite party nos.2 to 7 and executed the sale deed on 09.12.1991 in respect of the same in their favour and since then, the house is in their possession. The member of the second party/revisionist/petitioner also filed his written statement with the contention that the land in question over which the house is situated was in the share of Most. Kusum Kumari Devi, the sister of Jagdish Sah, who executed the sale deed in respect of the same vide sale deed dated 01.08.1992 in his favour and since then, he is coming in possession.
On perusal of the evidence and the materials, available on the record, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupari, Sitamarhi, arrived at the conclusion that over the land in dispute, the house is situated and declared the possession of the second party/opposite party nos.2 to 7 vide order dated 18.09.2009 passed in Case No. 416 of 1992.
5. The member of the first party/petitioner assailed the aforesaid order by filing Criminal Revision No.191 of 2009, which was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Sitamarhi, through the impugned order dated 21.01.2013, affirming the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistr
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
