BHATA BARIK Vs. GOURANGA PARIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second party No. 2 in a proceeding Under Section 144 Cr. P.C. is petitioner In this revision.

(2.) OFFICER -in -charge, Tangi Police -station submitted a report to learned Executive Magistrate in Non F. I. R. Case No. 68 of 1988 stating in the report that in: respect 1 acre 831 decimals of land over which crop was standing both parties are making claim for which there is apprehension of breach of peace and both parties ought to be restrained. On 18 -11 -1988, oh perusal of police report learned Magistrate 'was of the opinion that there is apprehension of serious breach of peace in 'the locality likely to cause blood shed, rioting, murder and arson and there being sufficient ground, initiated' a' proceeding 'under Sec' 144, Cr. P. C. He restrained both the parties from entering upon the ' disputed land 'and called upon them to how cause why the order would not be made absolute. In the said order, learned Executive Magistrate appointed Revenue Inspector ,Nachuoi to be custodian of the standing crop. (sic) on the ground; that there was likelihood -of speedy natural -decay; of the same. On 24 -11 -1988, -.officec -inccharge, Tangi Police Station .reported that he - promolgated..the order, .on 22 11 -1988. He made -;,a grievance that Revenue. Inspector, although, appointed as receiver of - the, land in dispute, did not turn up to harvest the paddy crop. From the report it is seen that Armed Police Reserve Force was posted in the village apprehending breach'of peace in the locality. On 25 -11 -;1988, Revenue Inspector reported that the disputed land had already been attached by the police oh 22 -11 -1933 -On that ground he expressed his 'in ability to be custodian of the disputed land. On :5 -12 -;1988, petitioner showed cause but 1st party took adjournment. 'On 13L12 -1988, at request of both petitioner and it party report Was called for from Revenue Inspector in respect of harvest of paddy and accounts if the same: had been harvested ; by: him. Before any report was received both parties were heard on 23 -12 -19815'tip'whicrTday first party show because and both parties filed some document On 26 -12 - 1988 Executive Magistrate dropped the proceeding - and directed Revenue Inspector to hand over paddy crop to 2nd - party N6; 2

(3.) MR . Ganes was Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Executive Magistrate dropped the proceeding relying on the order in the O. L R, Act proceeding by the Revenue Officer that petitioner Is the tenant. Merely ''because an appeal 'was filed against the order, learned Sessions Judge ought not to have set aside the order Second contention - Mr Rath is that in absence of finding of continuance of apprehension of breach of peace, a State proceeding where' final order would have force of two months only ought not to be reviewed. Mr. Rath submitted that a proceeding being, pending in competent Court, no interference with order of the learned Executive Magistrate was called for. Lastly, Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned. Sessions judge not having interfered with the order dropping of the proceeding, there was no scope for giving direction that the value of the usufruct in his hand should be deposited in treasury to be handed over to the successful party