AWADESH PANDEY Vs. BASHISHTHA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.2.1996 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Bagha by which he has declared the possession over the disputed land in favour of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 and has restrained the petitioners to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Opposite Party over the disputed land.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') was initiated with regard to 1 Bagha 13 Kathas and 14 Dhurs land of Khata No. 117 on the instance of Opposite Party No. 1 which was later on converted into a proceeding under Section 185 of the Code. Show cause was filed by both the parties. The case of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 is that the disputed land belongs to one Bachan Raut who was Khatiyani Raiyat of the land. Opposite Party No. 2 obtained the land from Bachan through the registered gift-deed dated 27.7.1977. On the basis of the said gift-deed the land was mutated in the name of Basudeo Raut and Sanjai Raut and Jamabandi No. 586 was opened in their name. They have been paying rent for which receipt is also being granted to them. Earlier also, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code was started on the instance of Opposite Party No. 1 which was decided in favour of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4.

(3.) The claim of the petitioners is that the disputed land belongs to Bachan Raut but was mortgaged by him in favour of Most. Sheopujan Kuar vide a registered usufructuary mortgage-deed dated 21.4.1934 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- in which period of redemption was allowed for five years. On the basis of said deed, the widow came over the possession of the land. The petitioners are son of Most. Shivpujan Kuar. Further case of the petitioner is that they had settled the land with Opposite Party No. 1 on Man Hoonda for getting the produce from the land. Thereafter, after the period of 30 years which was provided for redemption of a mortgage bond in the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and an application was filed for creating the Jamabandi in their name on which the Circle Officer issued his order to create the Jamabandi in the name of the petitioners by cancelling the Jamabandi already in the name of Sanjai Raut and Basudeo Raut. The claim of the Opposite Party No. 1 was only a Hoondadar of the petitioner and he has simply produced canal receipt for the years 1983,1984-85, 1986-87, cultivated.