GULAB KUER Vs. GANOURI KOERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is against an order under Section 145, Criminal P.C., passed in a proceeding between the landlords (first party) and some of the tenants (second party) of the village Noni Jalalpur in the District of Gay a. The landlords admittedly had certain bakasht lands in the village which were recorded as such in the settlement records. Then there are certain lands which were recorded as uncultivated land of the landlords. Some other lands which were recorded as raiyati lands of some of the tenants who no longer claim them were also in dispute and regarding them the version of the landlords was that they had abandoned them and they became their (landlords ) bakasht. All these lands form khatas Nos. 119, 18, 70, 71, 90, 91, 98 and 99. The landlords claimed all these lands and alleged that they have all along been in their khas possession., The tenants (second party), on the other hand, though they did not dispute that the lands were bakasht lands of the landlords, claimed that most of them were settled with them on batai by the landlords and had been in their possession. There were a number of plots of the said khatas which were not claimed by the tenants. The proceeding started at the instance of the landlord who asked that the tenants (second party) should be bound down as they were prepared to take forcible possession of their bakasht lands. At first it was one under Section 107, Criminal P.C., but was later converted into one under Section 145, Criminal P.C.

(2.) In the first written statement the tenants-(second party) claimed possession of the disputed lands without specifying which plot was in possession of which of the tenants. In a supplementary written statement however they specified this in the schedule. They did not lay any claim to plots 109, 158, etc., etc., and 5 bighas of gairmazrua land. About 22 tenants did not claim any portion of the disputed land, but the remaining members of the second party (about 37 in number) claimed some land or the other. The learned Magistrate examined a few witnesses on behalf of the landlord and a few on behalf of the tenants and held that all the lands of the said khatas excepting those which were not claimed by any of the members of the second party was in possession of the second party. He however did not specify which of the second party was in possession of which plot. The landlords first party moved the District Magistrate for reference to this Court. This was rejected. The first party has therefore moved this Court.

(3.) The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate has been characterized by the learned District Magistrate as irregular but the irregularity being of a minor kind, he has held that on the whole the first party was not in any way prejudiced and therefore he has not referred the case to this Court. I do not for a moment suggest that one enquiry under Section 145, Criminal P.C., in a case in which the landlord claims a large number of plots to be in his possession while different sets of tenants claim different plots in their respective possessions separately is illegal or necessarily irregular. But when there is such a combination of the claims of different sets of raiyats against one landlord in one enquiry, the question of prejudice will have to be examined.