KULFATAN BIBI Vs. AFUAN SK.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS re -visional application has been directed against the order of the Sub -divisional Magistrate (Executive) of Rampurhat, passed in a proceeding under S,146, 145, 144, 4 of the Cr.P.C. 1973. As the learned Magistrate was not able to ascertain which of the parties in the proceedings were in actual possession, he directed that the question as to whether the allegation of the first party -petitioners in the proceedings as to whether they are bargadars or not in the disputed land, be decided by a competent officer under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petitioners before us are two - (1) Kulfatum Bibi, opposite party No. 2 in the proceedings before the learned Magistrate and (2) Mechher Sk., Petitioner No. 5 before the learned Magistrate.

(2.) IT appears that originally an application under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 and petitioner No. 5 before us. Ultimately that proceedings was converted to one under Section 145 of the Code by the learned Magistrate. At the time of hearing, several witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioner -first party and some on behalf of the contesting second party, namely, opposite party No. 2 before the learned Magistrate. On consideration of the evidence the learned Magistrate could not ascertain as to which of the parties was in possession of the disputed land, although the first party, namely, the petitioners before him alleged that they were bargadars. In this connexion it may be noted that out of the 5 petitioners, one, namely, the petitioner No. 2 before us, in the written objection stated before the learned Magistrate that he was not a party to the proceedings and that he has been made one of the petitioners before him by the petitioner No. 1 by forging his thumb impression. However, in this application we are not concerned with that allegation. The grievance of the petitioners before us is that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to refer the dispute raised by some of the first parties, namely, whether they are bargadars or not, to the competent officer under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

(3.) IN this case on perusal of the order complained against, we are of the view that the learned Magistrate misread the relevant provision of law and acted beyond jurisdiction to refer the question as to whether the first parties were bargadars or not, under Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.