SRIRAM NONIA Vs. HRIDAYANAND MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist, Sriram Nonia, has come up before this Court assailing the order dated 27th February, 2001, passed by the 3rd Addl. Session Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Cr. Revn. No. 260 of 2000, whereby the Sessions Court allowed the revision before it filed by the opposite party of the revision before this Court and set aside order passed by the executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Case No. 1 of 1995.

(2.) Facts relevant for this revision are, in short, that the revisionist. Sriram Nonia, had preferred the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 1 of 1995 before the Executive Magistrate under Section 147 Cr. PC claiming easementary right of passage over a piece of land 31-32 feet in length and 5 feet in width between the houses of one Kesho Prasad Upadhaya over Plot No. 59 and Hridayanand and others (O.P. of this revision) over Plot No. 61. Further it was the case of Sriram Nonia that he was living on Plot Nos. 55 & 56 under Khata No. 88 for the last fifty years and so he obtained settlement from the State of Bihar in the year 1983. However, in the year 1995, opposite party Hridayanand Mishra and his family members, who were owners of Plot No. 61. started raising a wall on their southern extremity which amounted to blocking of passage of the revisionist from his house. The revisionist was using the aforesaid passage to go upto the road on the southern extremity of the houses of Kesho Upadhyay and Hridayanand Mishra from his own house. Both, Kesho Upadhyay and Hridayanand Mishra each had left 2 1/2 feet wide land carved out from their own land for the passage of the revisionist for the last 50 years. However, on account of the raising of wall on Gth March, 1995, the informant was obstructed in his passage and so he filed a petition before the Executive Magistrate who, after taking evidence on behalf of both the parties, decided the proceeding in favour of Sriram Nonia and directed the demolition of the alleged wall raised by Hridayanand Mishra and his family members.

(3.) However, the learned Sessions Judge in the revision filed by the 2nd Party of the proceeding, set aside the order of the Executive Magistrate, which necessitated the filing of the revision before this Court.