UPENDRA SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.3.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Munger, in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2002 and for further confirmation of the order dated 1.3.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tarapur, in Case No. 190 of 1999 under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure by which the Magistrate had declared the possession of the Petitioner upon the disputed land.

(2.) It is undisputed that the Petitioner was the first party before the S.D.J.M., Tarapur whereas the opposite parties were second party and after having heard and considered the claims and counter claims of the parties, it held that the Petitioner 1st party was in possession of the land and the order was to be in existence till such time as competent Civil Court had decided the issue. As against this, the opposite party No. 2 went before the Revisional Court but, the Revisional Court decided the matter only on two points: (i) that the S.D.J.M., Tarapur had passed two contradictory orders in two cases with respect to the same disputed land between the same parties, (ii) that the S.D.J.M., Tarapur in Case No. 190 of 1999 had reversed the order of the Revisional Court passed in Case No. 249 of 1996 which was not permitted.

(3.) To understand this part of the order, it is essential to explain that in fact, earlier, a proceeding under Section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated between the present parties which was numbered as Case No. 249 of 1996 in which the S.D.J.M. had confirmed the possession of the opposite parties on the disputed land which was upheld by the Revisional Court. However, it appears that the said proceeding had been initiated sometime in the year 1996 in which final orders were passed on 2.9.1996 and the question of possession of the opposite parties in the last two months was obviously before the order dated 2.9.1996. It is, therefore, manifest that there was an intervening period of at least three years between the two proceedings. In the present proceeding the S.D.J.M., Tarapur by an order dated 1.3.2002 had confirmed the possession of the Petitioner on the disputed lands, in the last two months. To assume that the position existing in 1996 was still subsisting in 1999 only on the basis of the decision in the earlier proceeding is not permissible, in my view.