AJAB NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition an order dated 14-1-1991, passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 271 of 1981, has been challenged.

(2.) FOR the disposal of this petition the brief history, which is necessary to be given in respect of this case, is that in the year 1976 proceedings under section 145 CrPC were initiated vide Case No. 38 of 1976 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballia in respect of 153 bighas of land in village Tewari Chak alias Dhora Chhapra situate in Ballia, which has been described in detail in the preliminary order dated 17-11-1976. By an order dated 13-12-1976 the Sab-Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, being unable to decide as to which of the parties was in possession over the disputed land, got the entire land attached under section 145 (1) CrPC and directed both the parties to get the question of their possession and title decided by a competent court. On 5-10-1982 the petitioner applied before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballia that the disputed land had been held to be in their possession and as such it may be released in their favour. A similar application was again moved before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ballia on 25-10-1982. After issue of notice an application was moved on behalf of the party of the second part that apprehension of breach of peace still persisted and as such they may be permitted to file an objection to the application of the petitioner, Ajab Narain. After hearing the counsel for the partie", the Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that from the side of the petitioner, Ajab Narain, certified copies of the judgment of the Assistant Record Officer had been filed on the record and an affidavit had also been filed that since no appeal had been preferred by the other side, the said judgment has become final. Noting the fact that after the notice the counsel for the second party had asked for time but had not tendered any such evidence which could have demolished the case of the petitioner, Ajab Narain, the magistrate found that since there was an order by the Assistant Records Officer in favour of the party of the first part and since it was a judgment by a competent authority hence acting upon the same the magistrate directed the possession of the property to be handed over to the party of the first part after releasing the said property from attachment. It was further directed that all the money which had been recovered by way of auction of crop of the said property should be released in favour of the party of the first part.

(3.) THE revisional court had taken the view that the orders passed by the Assistant Records Officer, which are papers 44-Ka to 54-Ka, are not orders which can be treated to be decisions of title by' a competent court Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to section 54 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. A perusal of the said section makes it clear that when the conciliation efforts between the parties do not succeed before the Naib Tahsildar, then the Assistant Records Officer has to dispose of the question of possession etc. in accordance with the provisions of Section 40, 41 or 43 of U. P. Land Revenue Act. We do not feel that in this matter of Partal the Assistant Records Officer decides any other question except the fact about possession etc. of the parties and it is only then that he passes orders for correcting the record etc. including the question of title as is mentioned in section 54 (6) of U. P. Land Revenue Act. Sub-section (8) of section 54 makes it clear that an order made by the Assistant Records Officer under sub-section (6), subject to appeal, shall be final. It is not disputed that no appeal had been preferred against the orders of the Assistant Records Officer which had been filed in the court below in connection with this case. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Assistant Records Officer in connection with the land, which is the subject matter of dispute in the case giving rise to 145 proceedings, have to be treated as final, and possession of land covered by the order of the Assistant Records Officer has to be given to the party in whose favour the orders have been passed by him in the proceedings pending before him.