BIREN CHANGMAI Vs. GOLAP CHANGMAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional jurisdiction coupled with inherent and supervisory jurisdiction is prayed to be exercised by this Court challenging the impugned order dated 20.8.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Sibsagar in Misc. Case No. 153/2006 under Section 145, Cr.PC.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, Learned Counsel appearing for the first party/petitioner and Mr. P. Bora, Learned Counsel appearing for the second party/respondents.

(3.) The 1st party/petitioner initiated a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.PC against the respondents praying for declaration of his possession ever an area of land measuring 6 bighas, 2 kathas and 2 lechas which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 125/2006 in the court of the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Sivasagar. During the course of the proceeding, the disputed land which is covered by P.P. Patta No. 73 of Changmai Gaon, Betbari Mouza in the district of Sivasagar was kept attached as per order of the learned Magistrate. The second party contested the proceeding by filing written statement. However, at subsequent stage they having defaulted to appear, the case proceeded ex parte against them and the learned Magistrate declared the possession of the disputed land in favour of the petitioner, on 18.2.2009. The aforesaid order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, in Crl. Revision No. 8(1)/88 and the learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment and Order dated 6.8.2008, setting aside the impugned order dated 18.2.2008, remanded the matter back again to the learned Magistrate for disposal of the proceeding in accordance with law allowing the second party to adduce their evidence subject to cross-examination by the first party. After remand of the matter, the learned Magistrate instead of complying with the directions of the learned revisional court virtually closed the proceeding directing the parties to approach the "higher competent authority" for deciding their right, title and possession, inasmuch as, according to the learned magistrate both the parties are brothers and they have right of inheritance over the disputed land and are fighting for right, title and inheritance over the disputed land, vide his judgment and order dated 20.8.2009, which is the subject matter of scrutiny in this revision petition.