MISRI Vs. NAZIR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 17-5-1975 of Addl. District Magistrate, Rajouri directing the Circle Inspector to restore the possession of the land in dispute to the respondent in accordance with the previous order of that Court.

(2.) MR. S. A. Salaria appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass1 the impugned order inasmuch as after the termination of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. he became functus officio. It is, however, conceded that the final order of the Magistrate passed in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. determined the right of possession in favour of the respondent and declared him to be entitled to the possession of land in dispute. The Court ordered the Superdars to hand over the possession of the land to the respondent. But after the respondent was put in possession of the land pursuant to the order of the Court he was subsequently dispossessed and therefore, the respondent could not now reclaim the possession in terms of the final order of the Court under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The remedy of the respondent, it is contended, is to file a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and also move the criminal court under Section 188 of the R. P. C The court could not again order the delivery of the possession to the respondent, it is further submitted that the case was covered by the Agrarian Reforms Act and therefore, no follow up action could be taken by the Magistrate.

(3.) I have carefully considered this argument. In my view it is not possible to accede to the argument that the Magistrate became functus officio and that he, was unable to implement his own order. My attention has been invited to a previous petition filed by the respondent before this Court under Section 561-A of Cr. P. C. decided on 15-6-1970. In that application as well the respondent had made a grievance of the fact that despite the final order of the court below in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. directing the respondent to be put in possession of the land was not complied with and possession was not restored to him. The learned Judge, who decided this petition observed: