CHAIRMAN SHALA VIKAS SAMITI AKOLI Vs. GHANSHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of case in brief are that on 01.11.1996, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatapara passed preliminary order and attached the disputed land situated at village Akoli and placed one Navalram in Supradnama. Thereafter, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhatapara by its order dated 08.02.2001 held that applicant in possession over the disputed land on the date of preliminary order dated 01.11.1996. The disputed land was allotted by the State through Upper Collector Raipur by order dated 28.11.1995 for agriculture purposes. On 25.04.1991 Tahsildar Bhatapara initiated encroachment proceedings against respondent Ghanshyam which was challenged by way of revision petition. The said revision petition however came to be dismissed 28.09.1992 maintaining the order dated 25.04.1191. In pursuance of order dated 28.11.1995, the applicant was placed in possession of the disputed land on 20.12.1995 by Patwari. Respondent Ghanshyam thereafter filed an appeal against the order dated 28.11.1995 passed by Upper Collector Raipur allotting the land to the applicant but the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.07.1997 by Upper Commissioner Raipur Division.

(2.) Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties and proceedings under Section 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. were initiated and preliminary order dated 01.11.1996 was passed and disputed land was attached. Sub Divisional Magistrate Bhatapara found vide its order dated 08.02.2001 found the applicant herein to be in possession of the disputed land but however, the said order was set aside by Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur on 13.10.2001 and declared respondent Ghanshyam to be in possession of the land. Hence this revision.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant submits that there was no legal error in the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Bhatapara declaring the applicant in possession of the disputed land on the date of preliminary order dated 01.11.1996. He submits that revisional Court should not have re-appreciated the evidence and recorded another finding of fact. He further submits that even the revisional Court has set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate going beyond the revisional scope.