RAMASHISH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second party-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 25.09.2001 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Madhubani in M.R.No.503/89, Trial No.39/01 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by which the possession of the first party-opposite party no.2 has been declared over the land in dispute bearing Khata No.114, Plot No.1292, Area 18 Dhurs, Mauza-Bardaha and the petitioners have been restrained from disturbing the possession of the first party-opposite party no.2.

(2.) ON a petition filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2, a report was called for from the police and on the basis of the police report, a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, it was later on converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioners, the land in dispute belongs to one Budhan Halwai, he sold the land in favour of Raghunandan Jha and Madhu Jha prior to cadastral survey and father of the petitioners acquired the land from the decedents of Raghunandan Jha and the members of the second party (petitioners and opposite party no.3) are in possession of the land. The first party-opposite party no.2 has claimed to be the decedents of Budhan Sah. It has been stated by the first party-opposite party that the land bearing survey plot no.1292 measuring an area of 18 Dhurs was own and possessed by him and the petitioners wanted to disturb his possession. It has also been alleged that the petitioners have got no document and inspite of that they are creating trouble. The learned Magistrate had declared the possession of the first party vide order dated 25.06.1992. The petitioners and the opposite party no.3 preferred Criminal Revision No.619/92 in the Patna High Court. The learned Magistrate has declared the possession of the land in dispute in favour of the second party-opposite party on the basis of oral evidence and the documents filed on behalf of the parties, but he has failed to discuss all the documents and decided the case in favour of the opposite party simply mentioning some parts of the documents. The revision application was allowed on 1.10.1999 by this Court after setting aside the order dated 25.06.1992 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate and the matter was remitted back for disposal in accordance with law after discussing all the relevant documents.