CHAITANYA PRASAD SAHU Vs. PRINCIPAL, D.K. COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the Petitioner, it is seen that on 22.3.2000 because of non -participation of the Petitioner this revision was dismissed for default, but on the prayer of the Petitioner as per Order No. 5 dated 12.5.2000 the revision was restored. Thereafter on the two previous dates the Petitioner sought for accommodations and today Petitioner has not appeared. No useful purpose will be served by either suo motu adjourning the case or passing an order of dismissal. Thus perused the impugned judgment and the Criminal Revision is disposed of in the following manner.

(2.) A proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 338 of 1983 before the Executive Magistrate, Balasore with respect to Ac. 4.20.M decimals of land appertaining to Plot Nos. 1275, 1283 and 1285 respectively of Khata Nos. 107, 546, 43 and 85 of Mouza Santia. The dispute about the possession of the said landed property is between D.K. College. Jaleswar which is the first party represented through its Principal -in -charge -cum -Secretary and the present Petitioner Chaitanya Prasad Sahu who was the Ex -Secretary of that College. In the Court of Executive Magistrate, Balasore both the parties filed their written statements. In the written statement of the first party/opposite party it claimed that the aforesaid disputed landed property was purchased from the different land owners as per the registered sale deeds for the purpose of the said educational institution and while a building has been constructed on a portion of that area the remaining land being leased out for agricultural purposes for the benefit of the educational institution. The 2nd party/Petitioner in his written statement while not disputing to the aforesaid contention of the first party relating to purchase of the land through registered sale deeds in the name of the educational institution, he however advanced the plea that on the date of purchase of the land, i.e., on the date of execution of the registered sale deeds since the educational institution had no sufficient fund, therefore, the second party who was then Secretary of the said educational Institution, on consent and agreement of the management of the said educational institution, advanced Rs. 20,000/ - for purchase of that land in the name of the College but to retain the possession with him until the amount is repaid. According to him, since the amount has remained unpaid to him from the first party, therefore, he is continuing in possession for over a period of 12 years and has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. On consideration of such plea and stating about the evidence on record, the Executive Magistrate without discussing such evidence recorded the finding abruptly that the 2nd party/Petitioner was in possession of the said land on the date of preliminary order. The educational institution challenged that order and learned Addl Sessions Judge, Balasore in Criminal Revision No. 27/1 of 1991 -90, after hearing the parties, set aside the aforesaid order of the Magistrate and declared possession of the educational institution after assessment of evidence on record and the principal of law from the cited authorities. Therefore, the 2nd party has come to this Court.