UTTAM LAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27-9-1996 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Madhipura in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1996 and the order dated 6-6-1996 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Madhipura in Miscellaneous Case No. 244 of 1996. Learned. Sub-divisional Magistrate by the aforesaid order initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by ignoring the final order passed by him in the earlier proceeding for the same dispute between the same parties.

(2.) The fact of the case lies in a very narrow compass.

(3.) The land in dispute comprised within the plot No. 1283 (old plot No. 1058) measuring an area of 44 decimal of village-Sakhua, Police Station-Mur- liganj, District-Madhipura. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of State of Bihar which has been settled to Sri Shardanand Singh in whose name zamabandi No. 19 was fixed in the record of the Government and he has been paying rent and getting rent receipt. The petitioners claimed to be landless people approached the said Shardanand Singh for sale of the land for the purpose of construction of their residential houses. The petitioners paid the consideration amount to the said land owner and came in possession of the disputed land and constructed their residential houses and are living peacefully in their respective houses. The petitioners' further case was that sale deed of the land in dispute was executed by Sri Shardanand Singh in favour of the wife of petitipner Nos. 1 and 2 on 26-3-1996 and has been duly registered. The petitioners' further case was that on 30-3-1996 the respondent No. 2 informed the Officer-in-Charge, Murliganj stating that there was apprehension of breach of peace between him and the petitioners over the land in dispute, consequent there upon on the basis of the police report the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Madhipura initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure both against the petitioners and respondent No. 2 and they were asked to file their show-cause. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 filed their respective show cause and also filed their documents in support of their claim of right, title and possession. In the show cause filed by the petitioners they have staled in detail the aforementioned facts about the purchase of land from Sri Shardanand Singh and construction of residential houses. In the show cause filed by respondent No. 2 it was stated that the disputed land originally belonged to one Raghunath Singh from whom his father purchased in the name of Pancham Narayan Singh on 4-1-1957. Pancham Narayan Singh ultimately exected the wazidaba deed on 24-11-1976 in favour of his father. Again on 13-3-1996 the sons of Pancham Narayan Singh executed wazidaba in favour of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 further stated that zamabandi was running in the name of Pancham Narayan Singh and he also filed a case under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act as in the recent survey Khata was not prepared in his name. Further Learned Sub-divisional Magistrate after hearing both the parties and after considering all the documents came to the conclusion that the documents filed by the petitioners fully supported their claim of title and possession over the disputed land. Learned sub-divisional Magistrate, accordingly, passed an order on 24-5- 19% declaring the peaceful possession of the petitioners and vacated the order against them. It was also observed in the said order that respondent No. 2 may move to civil court for ventilating his claim, a copy of the said order is Annexure 3 to the writ application. It is further stated that respondent No. 2 did not challenge the aforesaid final order dated 24-5-19% by filing an appeal or revision. The respondent No. 2, however, again filed a Miscellaneous Case No. 244 of 1996 before the learned Sub- divisional Magistrate, Madhipura on 6- 6-1996 stating therein the same facts against these petitioners of the same disputed over the land. Learned Sub- divisional Magistrate who decided the case just before 12 days back entertained the application and passed an order on 6-6-1996 for penitiation of proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued notice calling upon the petitioners to file their written statement. The petitioners, therefore, challenged the aforesaid order by filing revision application before the District Judge, Madhipura being Criminal Revision No. 64 of 19% and the Learned Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhipura after hearing the parties dismissed the revision in terms of an order dated 27-9-19%.