BISHWAKARMA RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dtd. 15/7/2016 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Gopalganj in Cr. Revision No. 146 of 1997, whereby Ld. Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order dtd. 12/5/1997 passed by Ld. Executive Magistrate, Gopalganj under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C., whereby Ld. Executive Magistrate had declared the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute bearing Khata No. 413, Khesra No. 1362 measuring area 2 Katha 8 Dhur till the order is reversed by the competent Court.

(2.) The relevant facts as emerging from the record are that the proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated by Ld. Executive Magistrate, Gopalganj between the petitioners and private respondents on account of dispute in relation to title and possession over the land in question bearing Khata No. 413, Khesra No. 1362 measuring area 2 Katha 8 Dhur. Ld. Executive Magistrate, Gopalganj after recording of evidence and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that land in question was Gairmajarua land of Hathua Maharaj, which, as per the claim of the 2nd parties, was settled in their favour. However, it was held that as per law, Gairmajarua land cannot be settled. Hence, case of the 2nd party comes under suspicion and hence, the first party was held to be in possession of the land in question. Second party was directed not to interfere in peaceful possession of the first party. The order was held to be in operation till the same was set aside by the competent Court. Against the aforesaid order dtd. 12/5/1997 passed by Ld. Executive Magistrate, Gopalganj, the second party preferred Criminal Revision bearing No. 146 of 1997 before Sessions Court. Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Gopalganj by the impugned order dtd. 15/7/2016 passed in Cr. Revision No. 146 of 1997, set aside the order passed by Ld. Executive Magistrate, Gopalganj holding that Executive Magistrate is not competent to inquire into title of the parties before himself and hence, the order passed by Ld. Executive Magistrate was vitiated and accordingly, it was set aside. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Gopalganj, the present petition has been preferred.

(3.) Ld. counsel for the petitioners (the first party before the Executive Magistrate) submits that the impugned order dtd. 15/7/2016 passed in Cr. Revision No. 146 of 1997 by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Gopalganj is not sustainable in the eye of law. Ld. Executive Magistrate is competent to look into title and possession of the land in dispute and there was no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. Executive Magistrate. Hence, as per Ld. counsel for the petitioners, impugned order dtd. 15/7/2016 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-IV is not sustainable in the eye of law.