PARAGA PRADHAN Vs. BALAJI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Jharsuguda, on 25. 3. 1981 refusing to cancel the preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') under Sub -section (5) thereof. The petitioner is a member of the second party.

(2.) THE opposite parties and the petitioner belong to village Rajpur within Jharsuguda Subdivision of Sambalpur district. Opposite parties 1 and 2 made an application before the Subdivisional Magistrate stating therein that they are in possession of a piece of homestead land in the village with an area of 36 feet x34 feet for move than ten years and had constructed a house thereon. The petitioner with other members of the second party without having any right, demolished the house on the aforesaid disputed land on 20. 2. 1981. Because of such action, there was apprehension of breach of peace and so they prayed for action under Section 144 of the Code. The Subdivisional Magistrate by order dated 24. 2.1981 directed the officer -in -charge of Brajarajnagar Police Station to hold an enquiry and submit his report. The said officer -in charge made an enquiry and submitted a report to the Court. He stated therein that the opposite parties claimed the disputed land which once belonged to one Chedilal of Belpahar. But they could not show any documentary evidence of acquisition. The petitioner on the other hand, claimed that Pitamber Pradhan, a member of the second party purchased the disputed land by a sale -deed from one Sambhunath Majumdar who had earlier acquired the same from one Chediprasad Shukla. He emphasised that both the parties, were enimical to each other and were aggressive. He recommended initiation of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code.

(3.) THE petitioner on appearance made a petition under Sub -section (5) of Section 145 of the Code stating therein that he along with others, who are members of the second party, has been in exclusive possession of the disputed land and so there was no apprehension of any breach of peace. Further the identity of the disputed land being not at all clear and specific, but on the other hand vague, the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code cannot continue according to law. Therefore, the preliminary order should be cancelled and the proceedings dropped. This petition was considered by the Subdivisional Magistrate and by the impugned order dated 25. 3.1981 he rejected the same.