JAGARNATH PRASAD BHAGAT Vs. BASUDEO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal reference and the criminal revision arise out of the order of the Magistrate, first class, Hazaribagh, dated 4-8-1958, declaring the possession of the first party, Basudeo Singh, who is opposite party before us and forbidding all interference with his possession by the members of the second party, one of whom, Jagarnath Prasad Bhagat, is the petitioner here.

(2.) The proceedings relate to mineral rights in coal bearing area of three hundred bighas, popularly known as Banwar colliery in the district of Hazaribagh. This colliery formed part of the estate of Raja Bahadur of Ramgarh who granted a permanent lease of the Banwar Colliery along with other properties to the Jharkhant Mines and Indus-tries Ltd., Calcutta. By a registered instrument dated 8-6-1951, the latter created a sub-lease of the Banwar Colliery in favour of Jagarnath Prasad Bhagat, the petitioner for 99 years. Under the terms of the deed, Jagarnath Prasad Bhagat had no authority to create a further sub-lease. By a deed dated the 26th May, 1953, he, however, granted Basudeo Singh the opposite party, on payment of rupees eight thousand as earnest money, a managing contract to work the said coal mines for 19 years on terms and conditions incorporated in Annexure A to the deed. Under the terms of the deed Basudeo Singh was given fifty-six months' time to prepare a plan and execute and register a formal document. Basudeo Singh further had to submit the plan of the area to be so taken before Jagarnath Prasad Bhagat for approval within three months. A default in submission of the plan or execution of the registered document within the agreed period gave the petitioner an option to cancel the agreement and forfeit the earnest money. It is common ground that the plan was not submitted and the registered document was not executed as stipulated. On 25-4-1957, the petitioner served a notice on the opposite party to the effect that the lease had been determined. Basudeo Singh, the opposite party, replied that the lease was operative for nineteen years and could not be legally terminated and that in any event of the matter should rather be referred to arbitration as provided in the agreement.

(3.) On 11-5-1957, a dispute arose about possession of the said colliery and on the report of the police, the Magistrate on 30-5-1957, started a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the members of both the parties, and on 25-6-1957, converted the said proceedings to proceedings under Section 145, Criminal procedure Code.