SHOBJANANSHEIKH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-application is directed against, the order dated 1.8.91 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka in' Cr. Revision No. 68/83 setting aside and reversing the order dated 9-2-83 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Rajmahal, in Cr. Misc. Case No. 178 of 1979.

(2.) The dispute in this case relates to 12 dhurs of land contiguous east of the house of the first party-petitioner over plot No.127, the total area of which is 10 katha 6 dhurs. In short, the case of the petitioner, who was first party in the court below is that his residential house is situated on plot Nos. 216 and 218 of village Maina Talab facing towards west and the means of egress and ingress to his house is through a portion of the plot in question, which has been in their use since time immemorial and it is through this passage that the villagers go to their houses. It is alleged that the second party members, namely, O.P. No. 2 forcibely wasted to close the said rasia by putting a tati which led to filing of an application under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') before the Subdivisional Magistrate, Rajmahal, whereupon a report from the local circle officer was called for. The Circle Officer reported that a tati has been put by the second party in front of the house of the petitioner and thereby aforementioned passages was blocked. On consideration of the said report a proceeding under Section 147 of the Code was drawn up and both parties were directed to file their show cause. According to the petitioner, he filed his show cause wherein he contended that he has been using the said katha of land by way of rasta for villagers since long time and the obstruction by the second party is mala fide causing inconvenience to them. The second party, namely, Opposite party No. 2 also filed his show cause, in which so claimed to be the owner of the disputed land on the basis of a Soda sale deed, executed some time in the year 1934. Ultimately, both the parties led their evidence and the petitioners examined 6 witnesses and the opposite party No. 2 examined 4 witnesses besides filing of documents in support of their respective claims.

(3.) The trial court, on consideration of the evidence and in exercise of power under Section 147 (3) of the Code directed the opposite party No. 2 to remove the obstruction from the land in question and also not to use the said land for his own purpose only.