BHUNESHWAR PRASAD Vs. ROMMOY ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order passed in proceedings under Section 144, Criminal P.C. The original order which was passed ex parte against the petitioners is dated 24 August 1939. The petitioners thereupon appeared before the Magistrate and asked him to rescind the order. This application was refused by the Magistrate on 10 October 1939, though the opportunity was seized to make some small amendments in the order. Against this order of 10th October, the Deputy Commissioner was moved in revision, and on the 30 of that month he rejected that petition. The petitioners applied to this Court on 18th December in revision against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate which the Deputy Commissioner had declined to interfere with.

(2.) It appears that lot Itkhori was a khorposh jagir under the Hamgarh Raj; and it is stated on behalf of the petitioners, representing some servants and some tenants of the Ramgarh Raj, that such grants are resumable on failure of the male line of the grantee. The last holder of the Itkhori lot khorposh was Degnarain Sahi, and it is common ground that he died on 18 July last. In 1934-36 the opposite party before me, representing one Buto Kristo Roy, purchased six villages of the lot from Degnarain Sahi, and it is common ground that the purchaser came into actual possession. The case of the opposite party is that Degnarain has left a son. The case of the petitioners, on the other hand, is that Degnarain left no issue and that consequently on his death the Ramgarh Raj became entitled to resume possession of the jagir and that it succeeded in doing so peacefully by publishing notices under Section 51, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The order of the Sub- divisional Magistrate as finally settled by him concerns, I understand, these six villages out of the jagir.

(3.) About a month after the death of Degnarain, Buto Kristo Roy began to move the authorities against the interference of the Ramgarh Raj with his possession. Police officers were deputed to Itkhori to see that the peace was preserved. The Magistrate himself appears to have been at Itkhori on 24 August, when he directed the Senior Police Officer deputed there to report clearly "in respect of which properties the Ramgarh Raj people wanted to exercise acts of possession and who has been in possession of these properties." The result was a police report that there was an imminent danger of a breach of the peace as the employees of the Ramgarh Raj would "certainly do some overt acts to take possession over the villages" which had been coming on in the possession of Buto Kristo Roy.