INDERDEO SINGH Vs. KESHO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Gaya under Section 438, Criminal P.C., recommending that an order passed by the Sab-Divisional Magistrate of Aurangabad on the 9 March last under Section 145, Criminal P.C., be set aside as without jurisdiction. This recommendation was made at the instance of Inderdeo Singh, the third party in the proceedings, who was directed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate not to go near the disputed land, two plots with an area of about 17 bighas, "till he succeeds in evicting the second party in due course of law", the order in question having declared this second party to be in possession.

(2.) In a previous proceeding under Section 145, Criminal P.C., which ended on 16 January 1936, Inderdeo Singh had been declared to be in possession of this very land, and the District Magistrate considers, on the authority of Raghunandan Pandey V/s. Kishin Mohan Singh A.I.R. 1922 Pat 210 and Jainath Pati V/s. Ramlakhan Prasad A.I.R. 929 Pat 505, that a second proceeding under the same section in respect of the same land is without jurisdiction. The previous proceeding under Section 145 was between Inderdeo Singh as first party and certain servants of the junior Rani of Deo as second party, and the order passed by the Magistrate on that occasion directed "the second party not to disturb him (Inderdeo) until he succeeds in evioting him in due course of law". The junior Rani of Deo or her servants were the first party on the present occasion but did not contest the case, and the second party, in whose favour the Sub-Divisional Magistrate decided the case, consisted of servants of the senior Bani. It appears that in the previous proceeding under Section 145, Inderdeo Singh's claim was supported by the men of the senior Bani.

(3.) On the terms of Section 145, the order recommended for revision does not seem to be at all beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. He was satisfied from a police report that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed concerning the land, which lay within the local limits of his jurisdiction, and he followed the procedure prescribed by law and come to the conclusion that the second party and not Inderdeo Singh was in actual possession of the land. The recommendation of the learned District Magistrate is, however, based on the two cases from Raghunandan Pandey V/s. Kishin Mohan Singh A.I.R. 1922 Pat 210 and Jainath Pati V/s. Ramlakhan Prasad A.I.R. 929 Pat 505 one of which was decided by Jwala Prasad, J. in 1920 and the other by Wort, J. in 1929. At the date of the former of these decisions, orders under Section 145, were excepted from the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, though they were subject to superintendence under Section 107, Government of India Act, 1915.