KEISAM BOKULJAO SINGH Vs. ATHOKPAM LUKHOI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner as the first party and the respondents as second party were involved in a criminal proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of a cultivable area about 20 acres which are admittedly Government Khas Land. The said proceeding had been terminated in favour of the respondents by order dated 7.8.1981 passed by the Sub- divisional Magistrate, Imphal East, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 62 of 1977. Now, the petitioner (first party) had impugned the said order in this revision.

(2.) The preliminary order dated 12.10.1917 was drawn up on the basis of the petition dated 9.8.1977 of the first party and on Police Report under FIR No. 37 of 1977. The said order was duly scrutinised. There was no illegality nor any irregularity in the said order.

(3.) The respondents, as second party, filed their written statement claiming possession over the disputed land since 1966. Another written statement was filed stating to be the written statement of the first party, but the same was neither signed by the first party Shri Keisam Bokuljao Singh nor by his Advocate. Virtually, there was no written statement in the eye of law on behalf of the first party. The fact that the written statement purported to be of first party was without signature had come to the notice of the Inquiry Court only at the time of passing the final order. However, during the course of inquiry, the first party examined four witnesses and filed two documents, namely, Ext. B/i and Ext. C/i which are orders dated 21.R.1976 under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Misc. Case No. 20 of 1975 and order dated 18.5.1977 under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Misc. Case No. 12 of 1977 respectively. The second party also examined four witnesses in support of their claim of possession. As the first party had adduced evidence in the inquiry inspite of their written statement stood without signature, the learned Magistrate considered the their claim of possession in the inquiry. In that respect, the learned Magistrate committed no illegality. After concluding the hearing of both parties, the learned Magistrate passed the final order dated 7.8.1981 declaring possession in favour of the second party. The concluding and directive portions run as follows: I therefore, declare that the 2nd party is entitled to the possession of the disputed land until evicted therefrom in due course of law and further I forbid the 1st party and their men or agents from disturbance of the possession of the 2nd party over the disputed land until such eviction. It is found that the learned Magistrate complied with the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (6) of section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the matter of inquiry of the said proceeding. There was no illegality nor any irregularity.