AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision arising out of proceedings under Section 133, Cr.P.C. initiated by the applicant.

(2.) The applicant had alleged that he owned a field No. 175 which he had purchased from one Girwar a son of Narain Singh about four years back and that the way to his field had always been through the fields of opposite parties numberings 202, 203, 224 and 225. The opposite parties, howeyer, blocked the way to his field by erecting a wall between his field and plot No. 202. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pratapnagar, district Tahri called for a report from the Supervisor Kanungo. Bis report favoured the allegations made by the applicant. Accordingly ha passed a preliminary order under Section 133, Cr.P.C. calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why obstructions alleged by them may not be removed.

(3.) Opposite parties appeared and alleged that there was no public right of way....As the opposite parties denied the existence of public right of way through their fields, the learned Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 137, Cr.P.C. The opposite parties examined five witnesses and also filed copies of the khasra and the eajra of the latest settlement of the village. In these khasras and sajras no way was shown through the field of opposite party nor was there any entry about any way in the khasra. The witnesses examined besides opposite party No. 1 were Fakira Singh, Dayal Singh, Kama Singh and Dhan Singh, Fakira. Singh was said to be the tenant of the previous tenure-holder of the applicant. Oayal Singh was the tenure-holder of the plots lying to the north of the plots of the opposite parties. The case of the opposite parties was that the applicant used to go to his field through the field of this Dayal Singh and not through their fields. The other two wit-nesses were cultivating the fields in the vicinity of the disputed plots. All of them supported the case of the opposite parties.