JOGESH PANDEY Vs. BHUNESHWAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two applications, both of which are directed against an order of the learned District Magistrate of Gaya, dated 12-6-1950, by which the learned District Magistrate has referred a particular dispute to a Board under Section 3, Bihar Bakasht Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. The case of the petitioner is that he is the occupancy 'raiyat' in respect of 7.50 acres of lands comprised in 'khata' No. 68 of village Fata, police station Kutumba in the district of Gaya under the proprietary interest of opposite party 2 and 3. The petitioner based his claim on the strength of two documents of lease executed in 1946 and 1947. It was alleged that the lands were sold in execution of decrees for arrears of rent, and were purchased by the landlords who made the settlement in favour of the petitioner. One Bhuneshwar Pandey' son of Dcoki Pandey, filed an application to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Aurangabad for the reference of a dispute between him and the landlords regarding the same piece of land, purporting to be an application under Section 3. Bihar Bakasht Disputes Settlement Act 1947. The application was filed on 27-12-1948. The landlords alone were made parties to the application. The landlords appeared before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, & said that they were not in possession of the land which had been settled with the petitioner. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate expressed a doubt as to whether the Bihar Bakasht Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 applied and made a reference to the District Magistrate of Gaya. The learned District Magistrate heard the parties, and on 12-6-1950, made an order directing that the dispute be referred to the Board for settlement. I may state that the present petitioner, though not a party to the original application made before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Aurangabad, filed a protest petition to the District Magistrate.

(2.) Originally, an application was filed to this Court for interference with the order of the learned District Magistrate under Sections 435 and 439, Criminal P. C. In the cause title of the application, Sections 435 and 439, Criminal P. C., and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India were mentioned. This application was heard by a Division Bench on 8-5-1951, and it was pointed out that the functions of this Court under the provisions. of the Code of Criminal Procedure were entirely different from its functions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was observed that it was undesirable that an application which, 'ex facie', purported to be one under the Code of Criminal Procedure should be regarded as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Learned Counsel for the petitioner then asked for & obtained an adjornment for the purpose of filing a separate application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. A separate application was then filed on 16-6-1951, and both. the applications have now come before us for hearing.

(3.) Both these applications can, in my opinion, be disposed of on a very short point. It has been conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Sections 435 and 439 Criminal P. C., is not attracted by the order of the learned District Magistrate, because the learned District Magistrate was not an inferior criminal Court within the meaning of those sections when he acted under Section 3, Bihar Bakasht Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. This point has been settled by several decisions of this Court. I need only refer to one of them, namely, 'Bhagwat Singh v. Bhola Singh', Cri. Rev No. 712 of 1948 D/- 14-12-1948 (Pat.)