DURGANAND OJHA Vs. HIRANAND OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was an application made in criminal revisional jurisdiction. It asks that an order of the Deputy Magistrate of Palamau made on the 20th December last by which certain property in dispute between the applicant and other parties was attached under the provisions of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be varied. The dispute was a very complicated one; that is to say, it related to several plots of land and to trees which were on these plots of land and, as the Magistrate says, to the right to take lac from those trees. However, the Magistrate has dealt with the matter as one relating to possession. Now, the present application only relates to a particular plot No. 178. Some little time ago, the parties to these proceedings had been in joint possession of the whole of the property but there was a partition suit, and the Commissioner who was appointed to divide the property drew up a very lengthy report which it is undoubtedly difficult to understand by a casual perusal and which the Deputy Magistrate admittedly found extremely vague. The Commissioner had difficulty in dividing up the trees. He adopted two schemes for doing so; in certain instances, he, when dividing up a plot into two halves gave to each, of the parties all the trees which were on the half of the land which he allotted to each in other oases where it was not possible to divide the land so that the trees were approximately equal, be took a numerical account of trees on other pieces of land and allocated some of those trees to one or the other party. A careful examination of the Commissioner's report shows that plot No. 178 was divided into two portions and the trees on each portion were all given to the person to whom each portion of land was allotted. In the case of plot No. 178 it was divided into two portions called 178 A. and 178 B, plot No. 178 A. with all the trees on it was allotted to the applicant here and plot No. 178 B. with all trees on it was allotted to the opposite party. After the Commissioner had filed his report which was accepted by the Court a decree was issued by the Court embodying the report of the Commissioner and in the terms of the report and, after this decree had been pronounced in the early part of last year, the applicant received delivery of possession. Now, the Deputy Magistrate has not followed dearly the course of what has taken place. He could not understand the real position with regard to plot No. 178, and in consequence he took no notice whatever of the delivery of possession which had so recently before taken place in favour of the applicant here with regard to plot No. 178. I think that if he had had the matter of this plot clearly explained to him he could not but have followed the Civil Court decree. In fact, he would be acting irregularly and contrary to his jurisdiction if he had not given effect to such a Civil Court decree. This application is only made with regard to plot No. 178 A which is part of the old plot No. 178. With regard to the rest of the other plots with which the proceedings before the Deputy Magistrate were concerned, no application has been made to me. Under those circumstances, I think that it is here necessary for me to interfere and to set aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate of Palamau, dated the 20th December last in so far as it relates to plot No. 178 A. The receiver appointed under the order will also be discharged so far as this plot No. 118 A is concerned.