JAGDISH THAKUR Vs. JADOO PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against an adverse order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate of Arrah against the petitioners. On the basis of a police report dated 19-10-1956, "the learned Subdivisional Magistrate started a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Notices were issued against the petitioners as well as the opposite party restraining them from going upon the lands the area of which was described as about 200 bighas. Later on, by an order dated 13-12-1956, the proceeding was converted into one under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An order was also made attaching the disputed lands. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate then deputed a pleader commissioner, one Mr, Mukhram Singh, to survey the disputed lands and ascertain the exact location thereof with reference to the nearest village which had been cadastrally surveyed. He was further asked to report whether the disputed lands were situate in village: Nauranga and Chak Nauranga, as claimed by the petitioners, or, in village Sonbarsa, as claimed by the opposite party. He was also directed to show the exact location of the lands "after mentioning the name of the village in his case map which should include the boundary of the cadastrally surveyed village" with reference to which the exact location of the disputed lands had been ascertained. He was finally asked to prepare a map showing the area of the disputed lands claimed by different members of the parties. After the Commissioner's report was received, it appeared that the dispute was in respect of a much bigger area. The proceedings were thereupon amended on 4-4-1957, by addition of more parties. The subject of the dispute in the amended proceedings was described as follows : "About 265 bighas of unsurveyed land of Sonbarsa Deara north of the Nala which is close north of the Sonbarsa Ke Dera."

(2.) The claim of the petitioners first party was that the lands in dispute formed part of and lay within their maujas --Nauranga and Chak Nauranga -- and that they being their ancestral kasht lands, they had all along been in possession of the same. The case of the opposite party, who were second party in the proceeding, was that the lands! appertained to and lay within mauza Sonbarsa and were in their possession. They claimed that they came in possession of these lands under settlements granted by the Maharaja of Dumraon.

(3.) Before the pleader commissioner appointed by the Court visited the spot an objection was made on behalf of the petitioners regarding his appointment on the ground that he was connected with the opposite party. This objection was, however, disallowed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate on 22-2-1957. On 23-3-1957, the pleader commissioner submitted his report. The main finding of the pleader commissioner was that the disputed lands lay within mauza Sonbarsa. The Sub-divisional Magistrate considered the objections to the commissioner's report but held that they were without any merit. Thereafter the petitioners privately engaged a survey-knowing pleader, one Mr. Devi Dayal Choudhary, to hold local inspection. This gentleman submitted his report in due course along with an affidavit. His conclusion was that the disputed lands were situated partially in village Nauranga and partially in village Chak Nauranga. In other words, his finding was completely at variance with that arrived at by the pleader commissioner appointed by the Court. Thereafter, the members of the second party, in their turn got the disputed lands surveyed privately by another pleader, one Mr. Amir Chand Lal. This pleader, came to the conclusion that the disputed lands lay within village Sonbarsa, as had been found by Mr. Mukhram Singh. The second party produced this report along with an affidavit in support of their claim in the case.