MUJAFFAR MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.05.2017, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Balurghat, Dakhin Dinajpur, in connection with Criminal Revision No.09 of 2017.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was the recorded 'Bargadar' in respect of the land situated at JL.No.162, Khatian No.138, Dag No.227 within Mouza-Jamalgachhi, Police Station-Tapan, District-Dakhin Dinajpur and the total area of the said land is 1.22 acres. After the demise of his father Chainuddin Mondal, the present petitioner, being his legal heir has been cultivating the said land. Opposite party No.2 is also a 'Bargadar' in respect of 1.21 acres of land situated in the same area and the name of the opposite party no.2 has been recorded as Bargadar in respect of the land owned by one Gayaprasad Bhagat. The name of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner has been recorded as a Bargadar in respect of the land owned by one Sahadeb Bhagat measuring about 1.22 acres at Mouza-Jamalgachhi. Petitioner has alleged that the opposite party no.2 tried to grab the land from the petitioner and he initiated one proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and application was registered as M.P.Case No.83 of 2014 and in the said complaint, the opposite party no.2 alleged that as a 'Bargadar' he has been cultivating the land since long and he is in possession of the land for more than 12 years after the death of his father. He has stated that he has been cultivating the land of Gayaprasad Bhagat and Sahadeb Bhagat measuring about 2.83 acres of land by giving shares of the produce to the land owners.

(3.) Vide his order dated 19.09.2016 passed in connection with M.P.Case No.83/2014, the Learned Execution Magistrate, Balurghat came to a conclusion that the present opposite party no.2 was in possession of the land in question and the opposite party no.2 should be entitled to such possession thereof until eviction therefrom in due course of law.