MAYADHAR BARIHA Vs. SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Sub -Collector, Bargarh, in Criminal Misc. Case. No. 133 of 1993 whereby the said authority in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has directed maintenance of status quo by both parties with a further stipulation that parties may approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievances.

(2.) THE factual backdrop sans unnecessary details is that the petitioner being a village Jhankar performs seva puja of village deities and for the said purpose, he has been permitted to enjoy the disputed land on rent free basis in Bebandobast Case No. 144/83. As the opp. parties 2 to 10 disturbed in his peaceful possession and made attempts to enter upon the suit land, he filed a petition under Section 144 of the Code making a prayer therein to restrain the opposite parties from coming upon the suit land. The Subdivisional Magistrate initially passed an order restraining both parties to enter upon the suit land and directed them to file their respective written statements. On 24 -10 -1993, the proceeding was converted to one under Section 145, Cr PC, and the standing crop was attached Under Section 145(8) of the Code. When hearing commenced, series of documents, namely, judgment in Bebandobasta Case No. 144/83, order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, O.L.R. in VPA (A) 4/83, judgment rendered in VPA Case No. 703/65 -66. order of Tah3siidar, Bargarh in VPA Case No. 710/65 -66 and the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate. Sambalpur in VPA Appeal No. 28/59. were filed before the learned Magistrate. Those orders were filed to establish that the petitioner was in possession, and the claim of the 2nd party No. 1 had been rejected by the competent authority in VPA. Bebondobasta cases and the appeals carried from those orders, had already been dismissed. To counter those documents, the 2nd party members, took the stand that in spite of the decision passed by the authorties in VPA cases, they have been possessing the land and enjoying the usufruct thereof without any disturbance and they have never been evicted by proper Court of law. To support such a stand, they have produced a xerox copy of Hamid Settlement Khata No. 40 of Mouza Bagaibira and a letter from the villagers to indicate that they are performing Jhakari work. The Subdivisional Magistrate after narrating the cases of both sides concluded that the parties should maintain status qua and approach the Civil Court. - -

(3.) REFUTING the aforesaid submissions of Sri Acharya, Sri N. C. Pati, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that there is no proof that the suit land is covered by the orders passed by the revenue authorities in VPA case or appeals. Submission of Sri Pati is that if the disputed land is not covered, a civil suit would be maintainable and a proceeding before the Subdivisional Magistrate under Section 145 is tenable. Sri Pati has also highlighted that as there was some materials before the Magistrate to indicate that the 2nd party members was performing Jhankar work he has thought it appropriate to direct them to approach the Civil Court for proper determination of the lis in question and such a direction is absolutely justified.