PURUSOTTAM CHAUDHURY AND 3 ORS. Vs. PURANDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE member of the first party (opposite party) approached the police on 10 -2 -1965 alleging that the members of the second party forcibly dispossessed him on 8 -2 -1965 from the disputed land consisting of plot 524/1 with an area of 2.33 acres in village Tumilia in the district, of Sundergarh. After making an inquiry police submitted report to the Magistrate for taking action under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, on receipt of the police report the Sub -divisional Officer passed an order on 23 -3 -1965 transferring the case to the file of Sri R.C. Patnaik, Magistrate, First Class, for disposal according to law. On the same day Sri R.C. Patnaik passed the following order -Case received on transfer to my file. Start proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE case of the first party is that he is a landless Harijan. The disputed land was a piece of Anabadi Goda land. The first party made reclamation of the same. The second party members are influential persons and encroached upon the disputed land. The first party member had put ridges around the disputed land and was growing paddy therein for the last three years. In the month of Falgun the members of the second party armed with dangerous weapons cut the eastern portion of the ridge, forcibly dispossessed him and threatened to kill him. So he approached the police for action.

(3.) THE judgment of the learned Magistrate is somewhat unsatisfactory. He did not examine the affidavits critically and gave no cogent reasons in support of his finding that the dispossession was on 8 -2 -19155. On scrutiny of the affidavits we ate satisfied that the finding of the learned Magistrate is well founded though it is not based on discussion. The first party member filed affidavits of Khemsil Biswal and Bali Singh in support of his version. Both of them have got lands near the disputed land and they support the case of his possession for three years and dispossession in the month of Falgun. 8 -2 -1965 fall within that month. The second party members filed affidavits of Gurudeb Biswal, Purandar Biswal, Kulamani Patel and Srikar Singh. None of them has land in the vicinity. They speak of the entire plot 524 and not specifically of plot 524/1. There is no dispute that plots 524/2 and 524/3 are in possession of the members of the second party. The first party member does not claim interest therein. Thus the affidavits of the witnesses on behalf of the second party are vague. The affidavits of the first party are to be preferred to those of the second party in view of the fact that the witnesses have lands in contiguity. We accordingly confirm the finding of the learned Magistrate that the first party member was in possession of the disputed land until he was dispossessed on 8 -2 -1965.