NARESH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.11.2000 passed by 7th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, in Cr. Rev. No. 630 of 1997 by which he has dismissed the revision petition and also the order dated 5.9.1997 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Bhagalpur, in Misc. Case No. 540/97 by which the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has converted the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') into 145 of the Code.

(2.) The dispute relates to Khata No. 56 Survey Plot No. 147, area 3 acres 64 decimals situated in village Ahmadpur, P.S. Akbarnagar, Anchal Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the disputed Plot No. 147 of Khata No. 56 of mauza Ahmadpur P.S. Akbarnagar, Achal Sultanganj was wrongly surveyed in the name of Bhuvaneshwar Harijan, brother of opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. Title of the said land has already been decided in the Title Suit No. 185/65 in favour of the petitioners declaring the survey entry illegal by decree dated 19.9.1968 and the petitioners were in possession of the land. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 procured fake rent receipts in favour of their claim. The police also gave a wrong report that the land was ancestral land of opposite party and they had been in cultivating possession of the land.it has been also submitted that in view of decision of the civil Court opposite party has no claim over the land. Another Title Suit No. 25/88 filed by the petitioners is also pending in which it has been claimed that the land in dispute is not a Sairat land, as claimed by State of Bihar.As a matter of fact, the alleged land was settled as Sairat in the name of Shivanandan Yadav by the Government and again it was settled in favour of Hari Gorhi but they could not take the possession of the land because of the interference of the petitioners: The opposite party had no concern when such settlement was done by the Govt. It has been further submitted that in view of the order of settlement made by the Circle Officer, Sultanganj, who has also been made party in the proceeding because in absence thereof the proceeding was not maintainable. It has been thus submitted that since Title Suit No. 25/88 is pending in the Court below appertaining to the disputed land, criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code is bad and is abuse of the process of the Court. In support of this contention learned counsel has relied on a decision in the case of Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey and Ors., 2001 (I) PLJR (SC) 135, in which it was held that when a title suit is pending appertaining to the same land and possession, no parallel criminal proceeding shall be allowed to continue.