ZINNAH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH Mr AS Siddique, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr H Kharmih, the learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents and Mr S Sen, the learned counsel for the private respondents were heard at length.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this criminal revision relates to the order dated 01.09.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (J), West Garo Hills District, Tura disposing of the criminal proceeding under Section 145 CrPC without declaring the person entitled to the possession of the disputed land. The case arose out of the alleged encroachment upon the two plots of land bearing Periodical Patta No. 105, Dag No. 168 and Periodical Patta No. 198, Dag No. 285 situated at Phulbari Bazar and Syamding, Mouza No. VI, lot No. 2. This was the subject matter of the complaint made by the petitioner before the Phulbari Police Station. The Phulbari Police Station, however, submitted a report to the Executive Magistrate, Tura for drawing up a proceeding under Section 145 CrPC between the parties. As the Executive Magistrate was of the opinion that the dispute over the land was likely to occasion the breach of peace between the parties, he accordingly drew up a proceeding under Section 145 CrPC.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the Executive Magistrate without any enquiry or by recording evidence in a very casual manner disposed of the case on 13.12.2004 declaring the respondents No. 3,4 and 5 to be in possession of the dispute land. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the learned Addl. District Magistrate (J) by way of a revision petition, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2005 and was admitted by him whereupon the impugned order dated 13.12.2004 came to be stayed. When the records were found missing, the petitioner approached this Court in WP(C)No. 23 (SH) of 2008 for a direction to reconstruct the records etc. The writ petition was allowed by this Court with a direction to the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate to reconstruct the records and transmit the same to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (J) for hearing. It, however, transpires that the original records got re -surfaced after the order of this Court, whereupon the proceedings were resumed. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents never appeared before the learned Addl. District Magistrate (J) Tura even though he regularly attended the Court for more than 3 years. Ultimately, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (J) disposed of the revision petition. However, he has neither remanded the case to the learned Executive Magistrate for fresh enquiry nor did he declare the person entitled to the possession of the disputed land.