RAMDEO RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the State. However, no one appears on behalf of respondents no.4 to 9 despite service of notice on them.

(2.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 13.2.1991 and 20.9.1993. as contained in Annexures -7 and 9, passed by respondents no.3 and 2 respectively. Vide order dated 13.2.1991, as contained in Annxure -7, the respondent no.3, the Executive Magistrate, has decided a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner declaring the land in question in possession of the Ram Janki Temple and by order dated 20.9.1993 as contained in Annexure -9 the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order as contained in Annexure -7

(3.) MR . Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the land in question appertaining to Khata no. 724. plot no. 125 with an area of 47 decimal, was already given in possession of the petitioner by the Consolidation Authorities under section 12 A of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and, in that view of the matter, the learned Executive Magistrate, respondent. no.3, could have decided the proceeding inconsistent with the order passed by the Authorities under the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that though this plea was taken by the petitioner and also by the second party the learned Magistrate has ignored the order passed by the Consolidation Authorities and has decided the proceeding contrary to the verdict of the Consolidation Authorities and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, as contained in Annexure -7, is wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that the revisional court even has not given any finding on the question of law raised by the petitioner and, therefore, the order, as contained in Annexure -9, is also not sustainable in law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in support of his contention, has drawn my attention to the order, as contained in Annexure -6, showing that the petitioner had went in appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act against order dated 9.1.1989 passed in Case no.76 of 1988 and the order aforesaid was set aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.3.1989. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that at the face of the order, as contained in Annexure -6, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to decide the proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in conformity with the order passed by the Consolidation Authority and since it has not been done the orders impugned are not sustainable in law. In support of his contention the learned counsel referred the case of Nagendra Narain Prasad and Others Vrs. Laks -hman Goswami and ors. (1984 B.B.C.J. 316) and the case of Subash Prasad Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar and ors. (1987 B.L.J. 281).