SURENDRA SINGH Vs. JANG BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The members of the second party in a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') are petitioners in this writ application which has been filed for quashing an order passed in the said proceeding. The impugned order has been passed by the learned Magistrate after receipt of a finding from the learned Munsif under Sec. 146 of the said Code,

(2.) It appears that initially a proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Code was mitiated in the year 1968 which was converted into a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code on 26-8-1970. The subject-matter in dispute was attached during the pendency of the proceeding. The dispute related to seven plots of land details whereof were given in the proceeding. The learned Magistrate referred the dispute to the Munsif in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 146 of the Code on 30-11-1973. The learned Munsif, on a consideration of the materials on record and hearing the parties, recorded his finding on 12-8-1977 holding that the first party-respondent was in actual physical possession of the subject- matter of the dispute on the date of the initiation of the proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code. A criminal revision application was initially filed which was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court. On behalf of the petitioners it was urged that whatever may be said so far as the other plots in dispute are concerned, but so far as the three plots, namely, plot nos. 1360, 1361 and 2223 are concerned, the learned Magistrate should have either dropped the proceeding or should not have passed an order of restraint against the petitioners because the petitioners came in possession thereof during the pendency of the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) (ii) of Sec. 16 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Judge has referred the case for consideration before a Division Bench. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrasekhar Singh and others v. Siya Ram Singh and others (AIR 1979 SC 1), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are sought permission to convert the revision) application into an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which was granted, and the application has been heard as a writ application.

(3.) The lands in dispute admittedly belonged to one Raghubar Singh. According to the case of the first party-respondent, said Raghubar Singh had executed a registered deed of will favour of his daughter Kishori Devi on 7.7,1964. After his death, said Kishori Devi came in possession of his properties, including the lands in dispute. Kishori Devi executed five sale deeds on 24.8.1968 and four sale-deeds on 29.8.1968 in respect of the plots in dispute. Those sale-deeds were executed in the names of different family members of the first party-respondent Jang Bahadur Singh, and since the date of the execution of the sale-deeds first party and his family members are in possession thereof.