LAKSHMI UPADHAYA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16th May 2008 passed by the learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, in Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2007, whereby the revisional Court below has set aside the order dated 12.3.2007 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, in Misc. Case No. 498 of 2003/T.R. No. 348 of 2003 in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., whereby, the possession of the second party -petitioner was declared by the learned Executive Magistrate over the land in dispute.

(2.) IT appears that due to dispute over the possession of the land in question the proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated on the basis of the police report dated 16.5.2003 between both the parties Subsequently, the proceeding was converted into Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., by order dated 11.7.2003. The land in question is bearing Plot Nos. 2150 and 4392 under Khata No. 352, situated in front of Moon City, Rajeev Path, Olidih in the District of East Singhbum, measuring about 5 kathas. The original owner of the land was one Baidyanath Gaur. The first party claimed the land on the basis of the Power of Attorney, whereas the 2nd party claimed the possession over the land in question on the basis of sale deed and the documents showing mutation of land in her favour and also other documents. The case of the first party in the Court below was that they were in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of Power of Attorney and they had also made construction on the land, but the second party tried to dispossess the first party. The case of the second party was that the land was purchased through sale deed and the same was also mutated and the rent receipt were also issued. The case of the second party was that she was in possession of the land in dispute by constructing her house thereon.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the evidence on record, the learned Executive Magistrate declared that the second party petitioner was having the possession over the land in dispute and prevented the first party from interfering into the possession of the second party till any contrary order passed by a competent Court.