BAISHNAB PARIDA Vs. SUBAL BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal miscellaneous case, the members of the second party in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code are challenging the maintainability of the said proceeding and for withdrawal of the Court's order dated 14.10.1977 wherein the Revenue Inspector, Algum has been appointed as the custodian of the standing crop on the disputed lands.

(2.) THE facts leading to the proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and the impugned order therein are as follows: The petitioners and the opposite parties claim possession over certain lands as tenants in several O. L. R. cases. The landlord supported the case of the petitioners. The Tahsildar in whose court the O. L. R. cases were pending held the petitioners to be the tenants on 31.5.1977 and rejected the claim of the opposite parties. The O. L. R. cases were pending in the. Court of the Tahsildar for two years. For the first year the Revenue Inspector had been appointed as Receiver. But for the second year, the petitioners were auction -purchasers and thus were in possession and cultivated the lands for the year 1976 -77. Thus, they are deemed to be in possession till the end of the agricultural year ending on 31st of March, 1977. The Tahsildar, as already mentioned, declared the petitioners as tenants on 31.5.1977 in respect of the disputed lands. The unsuccessful opposite parties in O. L. R. cases filed a petition on 7.10.1977 for initiation of a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code The Police reported on 11.10.1977 about the existence of dispute between the parties in respect of possession of the lands and so the Magistrate passed a preliminary order on 14.10.1977. On that day the Magistrate also appointed the Revenue Inspector as the custodian of the standing crop occasioning filing of two petitions challenging the maintainability of the 145 Criminal Procedure Code proceeding as well as for withdrawal of the order appointing the Revenue Inspector as custodian of the standing crop. These two petitions were rejected by the Executive Magistrate, Puri on 3.11.1977 and hence this miscellaneous case.

(3.) AS against this, it was contended on behalf of the opposite parties by Mr. Dora that the order is an interlocutory one and as such should not be interfered with at this stage and that there being existence of likelihood of breach of peace, initiation of a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code is not improper. It was also contended that the Tahsildar, that is, the O. L. R. Court did not give delivery of possession and so the opposite parties continued in possession and raised the crop for the year 1977 -78. According to Mr. Dora, the petitioners were only in possession till the end of Dec. 1976 and opposite parties being stronger got into possession in the year 1977 and had raised crop which the petitioners threatened to cut away and therefore initiation of a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code was very meet and proper.