NIJAMUDDIN MIA AND ANR. Vs. ABDULHEI MIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur, in Criminal Revision No. 53 Order 1956, by which he confirmed the order of conviction and sentence of fine of Rs. 20/ - each passed on the two petitioners by the First Class Magistrate, Imphal, in Criminal Case No. 63 Order 1956.

(2.) THE petitioners were charged under Section 447 I.P.C. with having committed criminal trespass on the land belonging to the respondent Order 6 -7 -56. The land in question was said to be one sangam in extent and was part of what is known as Ngangou Loukon. This Ngangou Loukon was originally a Government fishery and later it seems to have been thrown open for cultivation to the surrounding villagers in 1948 -49, The lands were to be distributed according to the agreed proposal of the Village Committees and allotments were to be made and pattas to be issued by the Government. This was spoken to by the Supervisor Kanungo examined as a Court witness in the case. It would appear however that no final allotments have so far been made by the Government or pattas issued. Lands have only been allotted to various villagers at the rate of one Lourak (2 sangams) per head by the village elders. The respondent herein was allotted one lourak in two blocks of one sangam each at a distance of one mile from each other. The dispute in this case was about one of the blocks of one sangam in extent. D. W. 5, examined for the defence, said that this block .was plot No. 13 in the plan prepared by the village elders, that the plot to the immediate south of it, namely, plot No. 16 was allotted to Achou Mia, the father of the first petitioner Nizamuddin, while the plot to the south of plot No. 16 namely, plot No. 24 was allotted to the second petitioner Nazimuddin. Each plot was one sangam in extent.

(3.) THE respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and two other witnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 3, who had come running to the scene of occurrence on the alarm raised by him and who had seen the two petitioners chasing the respondent with Dao and spade in their hands. P. W. 4, the brother of the respondent was examined to show that the respondent immediately reported the criminal trespass to him and to show that the criminal trespass to P. W. 4, when he went to the place of occurrence. P. Ws. 1 to 4 generally spoke about the possession of the disputed land by the respondent.