ANANDI YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Baij Nath Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.Haque, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opp.P y no.2.

(2.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.07.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Cr. Revision No. 529 of 2001. By the said order, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biraul dated 25.08.2001 in T.R. No.7 of 1996. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biraul in a proceeding initiated on petition filed by the petitioner under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had declared possession of Opp.Party no.2 over the disputed land.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the dispute is in relation to a land appertaining to Khata No.166, Khesra Nos.9, 16, 17 and 18, situated at village Akanama, Police Station- Kusheshwar Asthan in the district of Darbhanga. At the very outset, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that long back in the year 1988 itself, on petition filed by the petitioner, a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated in relation to the land in question and finally, possession over the land was found in favour of the petitioner's father and, as such, the said proceeding was disposed of. He submits that once the learned Magistrate in a proceeding had found possession over the disputed land in question of the father of the petitioner, at subsequent stage, there was no ground for initiating further proceeding. He submits that the disputed land was settled in favour of grand-father of the petitioner long back in the year 1949 and since then, the land was in peaceful possession of the father of the petitioner and the family of the petitioner. However, since 1962 Opp.Party no.2 and his family continued to disturb possession of petitioner over the land in question and, as such, proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was got initiated as per instance of father of the petitioner in the year 1988, in which possession over the land was found in favour of family of the petitioners. He submits that at subsequent stage no further proceeding was required to be initiated. On this point, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a single Bench Judgment of this Court, Ram Yash Singh V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors, 2002 2 PLJR 248 He has specifically referred to paragraph 3 of the said Judgment. For just decision in the matter, it would be appropriate to quote the said paragraph, which is as follows:-