K. TUINGANA Vs. H. VAKAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C. was drawn with respect to some agricultural land. The land was attached also. The proceeding terminated on 6.8.74 in which possession of the petitioner was declared and the second party and his men were ordered not to disturb the peaceful possession of the first party. By the order passed on 6.3.74, the attachment of the land was vacated. It is the case of the petitioner that he started possessing the land thereafter. A revision against the order of the learned Magistrate was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 1.10.77.

(2.) Around Sept., 1978, the opposite party No. 1 and his villagers started disturbing petitioner's actual possession, which led him to approach the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ukhrul, to draw a proceeding under section 144 Cr. P.C. An order under sub-section (2) of section 144 was also prayed in view of the case being one of emergency. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate being satisfied about the urgency of the matter did so by an order passed on 16.9.78. The opposite party No. 1 moved the learned Sessions Judge, who, while admitting the revision, stayed the operation of the impugned order pending final disposal of the petition, This led the petitioner to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court, who by an order passed on 12.10.78 admitted the petition. The operation of the impugned order was also stayed.

(3.) The order of 16.9.78 having lost its force by efflux of time, the petition has become infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nilamani Singh, however, invited me to lay down some guidelines in this regard as the points involved are not confined to the case at hand, but have been cropping up in a large number of cases here. According to Shri Nilamani Singh, this court should say something as to when power under section 144 Cr. P.C. can be invoked in cases relating to disputes of the present nature and as to when interference with the same should be permissible by the higher courts. It was stated that there is no decision of this court to guide the litigants in this regard. He submitted that the only decision of this court which he could cite is Altaf Hussain Vs. Akani Changmai, 1974 A.L.R. 54. This case has dealt with the question as to when a previous decision regarding possession under section 145 Cr. P.C. is binding in a subsequent proceeding under that section. As such, the same is not very relevant for the matter at hand.