RAJANI KANTA DE Vs. DEBENDRA NATH SINGH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Rule was issued at the instance of the first party in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. THE dispute related to a large tract of land--some 300 bighas in extent. THE Sub--Divisional Officer of Kalna, in the Burdwan District, proceeded, in the first instance, to deal with the matter as if the land in dispute was within his jurisdiction in spite of an objection by the second party that the land was within the Nadia District. THE second party then name up to this Court and obtained an order from this Court that the Magistrate before proceeding with the merits of the case, should decide, whether the land lay within the local limits of his jurisdiction or not. THE Magistrate has now decided that the land is without his jurisdiction. THE first party has obtained this Rule calling on the Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order should not be set aside on the ground that the land in dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Burdwan Court and not within the Nadia District, It is argued that the Magistrate has come to an incorrect finding as to his jurisdiction and, having come to this finding, has failed to exercise his jurisdiction, in that he has dropped the proceedings. It seems to me that this is a matter in which this Court cannot interefere. THE Magistrate had jurisdiction to decide whether the land lay with fully the local limits of his jurisdiction or not. He hap, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that the land is not within the local limits of his jurisdiction. That is a matter which depends entirely on the finding of fact as to whether the land lies within the Burdwan District or within the Nadia District. Having come to that finding of fast, that the land is in the Nadia District, whether the finding is right or wrong, he was bound to pass the order. which he has passed and we cannot interfere on the ground that he has passed the order without jurisdiction. That being the state of facts, in my opinion, this Rule must be discharged. Ghose, J.

(2.) I agree.