ALAUDDIN MIAN Vs. HAFIZ MIAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition in revision has been directed against an order of Shri K.K. Pathak, Magistrate First class, Monghyr, dated 3rd February, 1969, by which he declared the possession of the members of the second party in respect of the dispute lands in a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dispute between the parties appears to be a chronic one and so a brief history may be given. The disputed lands are the following:

(2.) The case of the first party to the proceeding is that the disputed lands were settled with him and his brother, Abdul Khair, about 20 years ago, by the 16 annas landlady of the tauzi. These lands were her bakasht lands. The petitioner applied for commutation of vent under Sec. 40 of the B.T. Act and the rent was commuted from bhaoli to naqdl. The landlady was not pleased with this move of the petitioner and she filed an appeal before the Additional Collector who set aside the order of commutation and remanded the case on the ground that the notice was not properly served on the landlady. When the case was sent back on remand, the landlady and the petitioner entered into a compromise on the 23rd February, 1953. By this compromise the petitioner was accepted to be in cultivating possession of the lands and the rent was commuted. After this commutation, the petitioner amalgamated the disputed lands with other undisputed lands of his. The landlady also accepted vent from the petitioner. But subsequently she raised some objection and challenged the compromise itself. The petitioner, therefore, brought a title suit for a declaration that the rent of the lands was commuted into cash by virtue of the compromise. By that time the members of the second party had come in the picture and so they also were made defendants second party in that suit. The landlady contested the title suit on the ground that commutation had not been made in respect of these plots, but they were subsequently interpolated in the compromise petition. Defendants second party also raised objection that they had taken the lands in settlement from the landlady and they were in possession thereof. The trial court (First Additional Subordinate Judge, Monghyr) decreed the suit in part and further observed that it was not necessary to go into the question of title as between the plaintiff of the suit (first party) and defendants 2 to 4 (second party), So that question was left open. The petitioner preferred First Appeal No. 520 of 1956 to this Court, which was heard and disposed of by the Hon'ble Mr. justice Mahapatra, who decreed the suit in its entirety and came to the conclusion that there had been a valid commutation of rent in respect of the plots in suit. Towards the end of the judgment his Lordship observed that the matter had been left open between the defendants second party, the plaintiff of the trial court and so that should not be disturbed. There was a Letters Patent Appeal No. 87 of 1960 in which compromise was effected and according to Order No. 22 dated the 19th February, 1965, the claim of the plaintiff respondents of that appeal (i.e. petitioner and heirs of his brother) was admitted. Thereafter, the parties fought more than one case under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On a police report dated the 1st December, 1959, there was a proceeding under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was later converted into a proceeding under Sec. 145 of that Code. That proceeding was decided in favour of the first party. The second party came in revision before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1405 of 1965, which was heard by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Choudhary. His Lordship remanded the case to the learned Magistrate and now the Magistrate has found the possession of the second party and so the first party has come up in this revision.

(3.) The case of the members of the second party was that Bibi Sayeeda Sakina Begham, the 16 annas landlady of the Tauzi, settled the disputed lands with them under a registered deed of settlement dated the 3rd October, 1953, and since then the members of the second party are coming in possession. They got rent receipts from the ex -landlady and when the zamindari vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the names of the members of the second party were shown in the Jamabandi which was filed by the ex -landlady. Thereafter, the members of the second party got their names mutated in Government office and they have been getting receipts from the State Government.