SHAHABUDDLN BARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the Order dated 30.5.2000 passed by the S.D.M., Narkatiyaganj, in case No. 384M/91/ 76M/91. under Section 145 Cr. PC. The first party of the aforesaid proceeding is the revisionist before this court.

(2.) The relevant facts for decision of the revision are that there was one Abdul Bari who left behind the landed property within an area of 180 acres. This property was subject matter of a ceiling case bearing No. 298/124 of 1975-76. In this ceiling case, descendants of Abdul Bari including the revisionist and other sons of the deceased and his daughters, who were the parents, were directed to give their option and perhaps. 30 acres each were allotted to the descendants of Abdul Bari. After making this allotment, rest of the lands was declared to be beyond ceiling. There was a chequered career of this ceiling case, and parties went upto the Board of Revenue and. perhaps, upto the Supreme Court, Annexure-3 has been filed by the revisionist to show that no final publication in the same ceiling case was made and. hence, there was no declaration under Section 11 of the Ceiling Act. Therefore, any claim of actual physical possession by the second party over the suit land was unfounded and baseless. It was further submitted by the revisionist's lawyer that the learned Magistrate relied upon certain unexhibited documents filed by the second party and declared their possession and while dealing with the evidence, the Magistrate further wrongly relied upon the oral evidence of the second party and rejected the oral evidence of the revisionist without any just and legal ground.

(3.) However, on perusal of the impugned judgment. I find that the learned Magistrate referred to the exhibits on behalf of the second party which were Ext. B series. Ext. C and D series, referring to the submission of option regarding the lands to be taken by the second party and some of these exhibits also referred to the draft publication of the choice offered and the allotment. This draft publication of the allotment indicated that the. parties were allotted with the particular land although these was no final publication because, perhaps, the parties went upto the Board of Revenue and. perhaps, also to the Supreme Court. Whatever may be the position regarding the final allotment confirmed and notified by the final publication on under Section 11 of the Ceiling Act, but this much is clear from the documents exhibited on "behalf of the second party of the proceeding (opposite party here) that the second party were allotted with certain lands in the ceiling case, which was, perhaps, not notified under Section 11 of the Act because of the cases before the Revenue Court and the Supreme Court. But the draft publication would indicate that the second party or any of the parties to the ceiling case might have come in the physical possession on the basis of the allotment which was. perhaps notified in the draft publication. The Magistrate had discussed and analysed the oral evidence on behalf of both the parties and it had come to a definite conclusion that oral evidence of second party (opposite party here) indicated that members of the opposite party, who are the sisters of the revisionist, were found in actual physical possession over the land. The learned Magistrate also referred to various communications changed between the police officers and Administrative Officers affording protection to the female members of the revisionist's family, so that their rights over the disputed land may be preserved and they may also be protected from any physical harm. Learned Magistrate relied on the documents although these documents were not exhibited. I am of the opinion that official letters exchanged between the Govt. Officers are public documents and, therefore, even if they were not exhibited, those may be taken into consideration in coming to a particular finding. So far analysis of oral evidence is concerned. I find that each and every witness on behalf of the revisionist was also considered one by one and on account of their ignorance about the actual area of the land under dispute or under the possession of first party-revisionist, their oral testimony was disbelieved by the lower court. So, unless the finding of fact of the lower court is vitiated by any mis-application of legal principles or any error of record regarding the actual statement of the witnesses. I do not think that this Court shall legitimately interfere. I have not detected any such lacuna in the order of the court below. The proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC is intended to prevent any breach of peace. It does not operate as a final seal upon the rights of the parties to possess a particular piece of land, nor this proceeding decides the title of the parties. The circumstances of the case indicate that the revisionist is a male member of the family of Abdul Bari and the members of the opposite party who are second party in the lower court are female members of the family and. so. the chance of their harassment at the hands of male members cannot be ruled out. In all fairness, therefore, I think that there is necessity to put a brake upon the unnecessary litigation of the parties in misc. cases under Section 145, Cr PC or in revision before this Court. The remedy and the best solution to the dispute in between the parties would be to file civil suit for declaration of title and right to possess. Annexure-3 shows that, perhaps, there was some case before the Supreme Court in which ceiling case was revived. So. ceiling case may also be the right forum for obtaining a proper decision regarding the right of the parties to possess the particular land. So. the order passed by the learned Magistrate in order to prevent breach of peace does not deserve to be interfered with by this Court Just to give rise to unnecessary litigation in the executive court.