DEHIRAM KACHARI Vs. LAPAU KACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision against the order dated 38.85 passed by Sessions Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi in Criminal Motion No. 67 (DM-4) of 1984.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed an application supported by an affidavit and the learned Magistrate was satisfied that there was breach of the peace and drew up a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Code for short. Immediately thereafter learned Magistrate passed an order directing attachment of the disputed land in purported exercise of power under section 146(1) holding that it would be difficult to maintain the peace unless the land was attached. The order of attachment and drawal of proceeding was made on 16.4.84. Learned Magistrate posted the matter on 25.7.84 for filing written statements and documents by the parties. On 18.5.84 on an application filed by one Mahiruddin Sheikh, learned Magistrate appointed him as a receiver for cultivating the disputed land and to submit accounts to the Court. Learned Magistrate directed that a copy of the order be sent to the officer-in-charge, Dalgaon Police Station. On 25.7.84 the opposite party-second party did not appear and learned Magistrate considered the testimony of the first party and declared possession of the land in favour of the first party. He also relied on a document. He was satisfied that the land has been in possession of the petitioner-first party for more than 2 years and confirmed possession in his favour directing that the first party should remain in possession of the disputed land until evicted there from in due course by law.

(3.) Against the orders dated 16.5.84, 18.5.84 and 25.7.84 the opposite party filed an application to the learned Sessions Judge questioning the validity of the drawal of the proceedings by the learned Magistrate. The opposite party also questioned the validity of the order under section 146(1) of the CodeT and further challenged that the final order dated 25.7.84 was passed without serving any notice on him. The opposite party also questioned the validity of the order of appointment of receiver without serving any notice to him.