BRUNDABAN KUAR Vs. KANHEI JAGAT AND 7 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first party in a proceeding under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is the Petitioner in this case.

(2.) THE extent of land at present in dispute is Ac. 22.77 decimals out of which 3 acres of land is claimed by opposite party No. 9 under on agreement to sell, and the other second party members claim possession over separate and distinct parcels of land out of the rest as Kar tenants thereof. The proceeding was initiated in 1968 and the Court by its final order dated 18 -4 -1969 declared that the first party was in possession of the entire property (Ac. 33.94 decimals) attached in the said proceeding except 3 acres of the same, possession of which was declared in favour of second party No. 9. Against that decision, the first, party preferred Criminal Revision No. 223 of 1969 in this Court in respect of the aforesaid order in favour of second party No. 9 declaring his possession over 3 acres of land. Second party Nos. 1 to 8 also preferred Criminal Revision No. 268 of 1969 against the said final order passed against them on 18 -4 -1969. Both the above -mentioned two Criminal Revisions were heard together and this Court, for reasons stated therein, remanded the case for fresh disposal of the matter as directed therein. On remand, the learned Magistrate released some lands from attach merit as none of the second party members had any claim over the same and ultimately on 20 -9 -1971 the learned Magistrate decided the case in favour of the first party declaring his possession over all the rest of the lands which continued under attachment in the case. Thereafter second party Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9 preferred Criminal Revision No. 608 of 1971 in this Court against the aforesaid order ' passed on remand on 20 -9 -1971. Second party No. 6 did not join as a Petitioner in the said revision but he was arrayed as on opposite party. This Court on 2 -4 -1972 remanded the said case for a fresh consideration of the case in respect of all the second party members except the case of second party No. 9 whose possession was declared by this Court in respect of only 3 acres of the attached land as claimed by him. Das, J, as he then was, while remanding the said case found, on a consideration of the materials on record, that second party No. 9 was in possession of 3 acres of land; each of the second party members claimed possession over separate and distinct parcels of land out of the attached property but their cases and the affidavits filed in support of their ' separate cases had not been dealt with separately and in the correct perspective. On the aforesaid findings Das, J declared the possession of second party No. 9 over 3 acres of land as chimed by him, and remanded the case for fresh consideration of the claims put forward by the other second party members and for disposal of the same according to law and in accordance with the observations made in the said judgment.

(3.) THE above -mentioned points on which the impugned order is challenged by Mr. Ray for the Petitioner have not been taken in the revision petition. The second party members have raised separate claims in respect of specific parcels of land ever since they put up opposition against the claim of the first party and filed affidavits in support of their respective claims, This proceeding, instituted in the year 1968, has by now been decided three times by the concerned Magistrate after hearing both the patties. Revision petitions by now have been filed three times by both and/or one or the other party. At no stage -either in this Court or before the Magistrate the above mentioned points regarding illegality, jurisdiction and/or prejudice, as urged at this stage were ever taken or agitated.