DHANIYA BADANAYAK Vs. MANIK BADANAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the second party members has filed this revision challenging the final order under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceeding was initiated on police report. On 25.8.1977 the preliminary order was passed. In the preliminary order the land in dispute was described to be an area of A.1.28 decimals of Khata No. 41, plot No. 224. After passing of the preliminary order the second party members filed an application alleging the land in dispute is actually plot No. 47 in khata No. 41 and not plot No 224. This application of the second party was rejected by the trial court and the final order was passed on 6.6.1979. In the final order passed by the learned Magistrate the possession of the first party was declared regarding plot No. 47 in khata No. 41 and not regarding plot No. 224. Being aggrieved by the said order, the second party filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 32 of 1979. The ordering portion of the criminal revision is as follows:

(2.) AFTER the order of remand was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate revised the preliminary order on 8.2.1982 and substituted plot No. 224 and amended it to plot No. 47 and also described in the said order by its local name Nisan Beda. After the said order, both the parties were noticed and the second party filed fresh written statement on 5.4.1982. On 9.11.1982 the second party filed a petition praying for attachment of the disputed land describing the plot number as 47 and also its local name. The learned Magistrate considering the said petition ordered that the Officer -in -Charge is to select a third party as a receiver and keep the disputed land in his zima till the final order of the proceeding and to harvest the crops by the receiver in the presence of both the parties. The proceeding continued and both the sides adduced evidence and final order was passed on 29.1.1985 declaring the possession of the first party. This final order passed by the learned Magistrate declaring the possession in favour of the first party is under challenge.

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the opp. parties submits: