SUKADEV BHANJA Vs. MANGULU SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the final order passed in a proceeding under S.145 of the Cr.P.C. Both the parties claimed exclusive possession in respect of the land in dispute and led oral and documentary evidence. On a consideration of the evidence to find out as to who was in actual physical possession, the learned Executive Magistrate has taken a view in favour of the first party - opposite party. While reaching this conclusion, the learned Executive Magistrate has taken due note of a decision of the Civil Court in favour of the opposite party who had taken delivery of possession of the disputed land through the Court. In a proceeding under S.145, it is the duty of the Executive Magistrate to give effect to the decision of the Civil Court and see, as far as possible, that the decree is maintained. It would otherwise put a premium upon the high-handed and unlawful activities of the other side.

(2.) The questions raised before me relate to appreciation of evidence. No illegality or impropriety has been committed by the learned Executive Magistrate. Assuming that another view could be taken in favour of the other side, that cannot be a ground for interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the statement of facts in the body of the impugned order that the opposite party's case was that on Aug. 9, 1980, the petitioner, with the help of others, entered the disputed land and reploughed the paddy field and replanted paddy crops and has contended that the petitioner had admittedly been in possession of the land from that date and the order under S.145(1) had been passed more than two months thereafter. But a sporadic act of trespass by a party would not amount to his possession in the eye of law and would not lead to a conclusion that the other party had thereby been dispossessed. This contention, therefore, cannot prevail.