BHRAMARBAR ROUT Vs. NETRANANDA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Patry, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard.

(2.) Petitioners were members of second party in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of the Executive Magistrate, Cuttack in Criminal Misc. Case No. 6 of 1983. The opposite party was the first party in the said proceeding. By order dated 4-4-1992 the learned Magistrate declared the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land. The said order came to be challenged by the opposite party in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Revision No. 68 of 1992. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 15-2-1993 set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and declared that the opposite party was in possession of the disputed land on tile date of initiation of the proceeding. Being felt aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners as already indicated, has filed this revision.

(3.) This case has a chequered history. By order dated 15-10-1984 passed by the learned Magistrate the possession of the opposite party over the disputed land was first declared. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 138 of 1984 before the Sessions Judge who after hearing remanded the matter to the Executive Magistrate for fresh disposal. By order dated 16-8-1989 the learned Magistrate declared possession of the opposite party which was challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 172 of 1989 in the Court of the Sessions Judge. By order dated 5-5-1990 the learned Sessions Judge again remitted the matter to the Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, by order dated 4-4-1992 the learned Magistrate declared the possession of the petitioners which has been reversed by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 15-2-1993. It would be evident from the aforesaid that the parties are still fighting out in criminal court without approaching the competent court for adjudication of their right over the disputed land.