HIRDAYANAND SINGH ALIAS HIRDYA Vs. RAMNAGINA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub- divisional Officer (respondent no. 2) dated 6-7-78 contained in Annexure 1 initiating a proceeding under Sec. 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 17-2-72 (Annexure 2) and the order contained in, Annexure 4 passed by respondent no. 2 dated 18-8-78 rejecting the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner that in view of Sec. 4 (b) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (Bihar Act XXII of 1956) (hereinafter called the Consolidation Act) the initiation of the proceeding under Sec. 147 was without jurisdiction and could not proceed.

(2.) The dispute related to a portion of plot no. 355 appertaining to R. S. Khata no. 134 in village Ghateya, Police station Kudru, district Rohtas over which a right of user as rasta has been claimed by respondent no. 1, According to - respondent no. 1 the petitioner began interfering with the exercise of such right and therefore, an application was filed by respondent no. 1 before the Subdivisional Officer for taking action under Sec. 147 of the-Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that in pursuance of the said application the present proceeding was initiated on 6-7-78 in which show cause notice contained in Annexure 2 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly filed his show cause. A preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner before the Subdivisional Officer challenging his jurisdiction to initiate the present proceeding and also to continue with the same. The aforesaid preliminary objection having been rejected by an order contained in Annexure 4 the petitioner has come up to this Court.

(3.) It has been stated in the writ application that Awadh Bihari Singh, father of respondent no. 1, who was a member of the Advisory Committee constituted under Sec. 7 of the Consolidation Act,-raised an objection claiming that a pathway may be constructed through plot no. 355 so as to connect plot no. 358 with plot no. 213. It has been further stated that the Consolidation Officer, Kudra after hearing the parties rejected the claim of the father of respondent no. 1 by order dated 29-7-77, a copy of which has been made Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Annexure 3 shows that the authorities found that plot no. 355 is situated in between the two plots viz plot no. 353 and 354 over which houses stand and plot no. 355 which has been claimed to be petitioner's sehan land which according to the petitioner may be required for extension of his house: In that view of the matter the claim of the father of respondent no. 1 for construction of a pathway through plot no. 355 was rejected. As to what is the present stage of the consolidation proceeding has n'ot been disclosed in the counter-affidavit.