GAJANAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, with a recommendation that a final order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, in a proceeding under S. 145. Criminal Procedure Code declaring the possession of the non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 33 over agricultural land measuring 108 Bighas 10 Biswas, situated in the bed of a tank of village Dhorela District Tonk at the date of the preliminary order and within two months immediately preceding it, may be set aside and the case may be sent back to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate with a direction to decide it afresh in accordance with the directions given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his reference.

(2.) THE reference arises under the following circumstances - Upon receiving a report in writing from the Station House Officer, police station, Anwa, on 9-10 1969 that there exists a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace concerning agricultural land measuring 108 Bighas and 10 Biswas, situated in the bed of a tank of viillage Dhorela, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, made a preliminary order in writing requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his court and to put in written statements of their respective claims with regard to the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute and further calling upon them to put such documents or to adduce by putting in evidence of such persons as they relied upon in support of their claims. THE parties put in their appearance before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and filed written statements of their respective claims along with documents and affidavits of their witnesses on whom they placed reliance to prove their case. THE claim of the petitioners, hereinafter to be referred to as party No 1, was that the land in dispute formerly belonged to Rao Raja Sardar Singh of Uniyara, who used to cultivate it every year through his servants and sometimes through other persons on crop sharing basis. Rao Raja Sardar Singh sold away this land to his son Joyendra Singh in Samvat year 2019 and handed over its possession to the vendee who, thereafter, continuously got it cultivated by his men in the same manner in which his father used to do. THE non-petitioners, hereinafter referred-to as party No. 2, were never in possession of the disputed land but they wanted to forcibly oust Joyendra Singh and in order to carry out their evil design, they interfered with the possession of Joyendra Singh on 20-7-1969 and 23-9-1969, about which reports were made to the police.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the reference is accepted, the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, on 14-5-1970, is set aside and the case is sent back to him for fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. .