SELESTIN KACHHAP @ SELESTIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the attempt for amicable settlement through learned Conciliator, failed, both the connected cases were heard at length and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN Cr. Revision No. 352 of 1999, petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.12.1999, passed by learned Sub -divisional Magistrate, (SDM), Jamshedpur in Misc. Case No. 374 of 1999, under Section 147 Cr.P.C., directing him to remove the two newly constructed gates after declaring the right to use the passage in favour of O.P. No. 2.

(3.) MR . K.K. Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the procedure contemplated under Section 147 Cr.P.C. was not followed by learned Magistrate while passing the impugned orders dated 9.12.1999 and 10.6.2003 inasmuch as no opportunity to adduce evidence or to object to the re -enquiry report was given to the petitioner. He further submitted that when the said order dated 9.12.1999 was in the process of the execution, the work was stopped on 6.1.2000 as per the stay order of this Court dated 5.1.2000 and as such the order dated 9.12.1999 was not executed. He further submitted that a portion of the disputed passage belongs to Sushil Kachhap, the brother of the petitioner, who was not made party and who by filing an affidavit on 16.1.2006 in this case, asserted that he never allowed O.P. No. 2 to use his portion of the said passage.