SHIVANI DEVI Vs. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid Criminal Revision and the Criminal Misc. cases have been heard analogous and this common judgment shall dispose of three aforesaid cases.

(2.) Cr. Rev. No. 145/99 has been filed against the order dated 15-10-1998 passed by the Executive Magistrate Muzaffarpur (West) in Case No. M 261/79, Trial No. 68/97 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 1st party of the proceeding in the Court below is revisionist before this Court and the members of the 2nd party of the Lower Court proceeding are opposite parties. The disputed plot was 2905 under Khata No. 195, area 90 decimals, old khata No. 36, area 98 decimals. The learned Executive Magistrate declared the lands in possession of the 2nd party-opposite party and aggrieved by that order, the revisionist came up before this Court.

(3.) The case of the revisionist in the Court below was that the disputed plot was recorded in the name of the Chaturi Mahot. In Executive Case No. 218/1900, suit plot was auctioned and sold perhaps pursuant to the decree obtained by the ex-landlord. One Surjan Devi purchased the lands in auction sale. Subsequently vide registered deed of surrender dated 20-8-1903, Surjan Devi gave up her possession in favour of ex-landlord. Subsequently, ex-landlord by settlement deed (Patta dawami dated 26-7-1922 settled the disputed land and other lands in favour of one Ram Bahadur Sah. Parikshan Pd. Sahu, who is own brother of Ram Bahadur Sah, came in possession of the suit land aiongwith other lands on the death of Ram Bahadur Sah. Return was filed in his name. Subsequently, he started holding Hat (Mart) on some portion of the disputed lands. There was proceeding under Section 4 (H) of the Land Reforms Act and the State Government relinquished its claim in Claims Case No. 2/62 and released the lands in favour of Parikshan Pd. Sahu, Shivani Devi, his daughter replaced him in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Parikshan Pd. Sahu had got his i;ame mutated over this land. However, during the consolidation proceeding, as ex-parte order was obtained by 2nd party of the proceeding in their favour and against the order of the Consolidation Officer, there was an appeal before the Deputy Director, Consolidation. But the 1st party revisionist failed and then her predecessor appeared before the revisional authority. Having failed there, writ was filed on the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the revisional Court and remanded the matter to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh. However, the opposite party obtained illegal order of mutation in their favour and the appeal before the DCLR filed by the revisionist failed. Thereafter, 2nd party opposite party started interfering with the peaceful possession of the revisionist and his ancestor which led to the initiation of the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C.