MOSSOMAT JHALO DEVI Vs. JAGANNATH MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd party are the petitioners in this Criminal Revision application, which arises out of an order dated 12.9.1986 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 1985, whereby he had declared the possession of the land, in dispute, in favour of 1st party opposite party in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC after setting aside the order dated 15.2.1985 passed by the learned Magistrate. On a petition filed by the 1st party opposite party a proceeding was initiated under Section 144, Cr PC on 7.11.1981, which was subsequently converted into 145, Cr PC on 8.1.1982 and the parties were directed to file their show cause and produce evidence in support of their respective cases.

(2.) The case of the petitioners, in short, is that the plots, in question, along with other plots were recorded in the name of their father Ajodhya Rout. Their further case is that their ancestors were paying rent in respect of the disputed plots and were in continuous possession over the same. The case of the 1st party, on the other hand, is that no doubt the plot, in question was originally stands recorded in the name of Ajodhya Rout but he was evicted form the aforesaid plots due to arrears of rent vide rent execution case No. 405/1934-45. It is alleged that the grand-father of the opposite party Chutar Mandal had made the entire arrears of rent due to State Exchequer on behalf of said Ajodhya Rout and, accordingly, it was agreed that the said 2 plots measuring an area of 1.64 decimals would be settled in favour of grand-father of the opposite party. It is alleged that the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, by his order dated 26.4. 1939 recorded the aforesaid plots in favour of Chutar Mandal, the grand-father of the opposite party, and the remaining plots were returned to the father of the petitioner, namely, Ajodhya Rout. It is further alleged that the grand-father of opposite party came in possession of the aforesaid plots in the year 1940 by virtue of delivery of possession effected by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka. As stated above, 1st party opposite party filed an application on 5.11.1981 before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, stating therein that the petitioners and their father are bent upon to harvest the crops grown by him and on the basis of the aforesaid petition a proceeding was initiated under Section 144, Cr PC. The parties laid oral evidence as well as filed several documents before the learned Magistrate in support of their respective cases. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 15.2.1985 has declared the possession of the disputed lands in favour of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate the (sic) he preferred an application before the learned Sessions Judge, which was registered as criminal revision No. 9 of 1985. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and declared the possession of the land, in question, in favour of 1st party opposite party.

(3.) Mr. Jha learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order of learned Judge mainly on the ground firstly that the leaned revisional Court while setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties in right perspective and secondly the learned Judge has wrongly relied upon the decision of the Deputy Commissioner passed in a proceeding under Section 42 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Accordingly, it is submitted that the order passed by the revisional Court is completely vitiated in law.