IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.531 of 2002
[Against the order dated
22.4.2002 passed by the learned
Executive Magistrate, Sasaram in
Case No. 1298 (M) of 1994]
=======================================================
Ram Bachan Dubey son of late Surya Nath Dubey @ Jagdish Dubey, resident of village- post office and police station Kochas, District Rohtas at Sasaram. (since dead)
1(A). Most. Sharda Kuer wife of Ram Bachan Dubey
1(B). Surendra Kumar Dubey
1(C). Satyendra Kumar Dubey
Both s/o Ram Bachan Dubey.
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sri Kishun Nonia (since dead)
2(a) Most. Priti Kuer
2(b) Jhapsu Nonia
2(C)Jhabbu Nonia
2(d) Dhannu Nonia
2(e) Tuntun Nonia
3. Chandrama Nonia (since dead)
3(a) Most Udashi Kuer wife of late Chandrama Nonia
3(b) Sudarshan Nonia
3(C) Bangali Nonia
3(d) Bijoy Nonia
3(e) Uday Narayan Nonia (since dead)
3(f) Hriday Narayan Nonia
All sons of late Chandrama Nonia, R/o village P.S. Kochas, District Rohtas at Sasaram.
3(g) Baijanti Kuer
3(h) Upendra Nonia
4. Shyam Bihari Nonia son of Late Matar Nonia
5. Tuni Nonia (since dead)
5(a) Most Bechani Kuer wife of Tuni Nonia
5(b) Bahadur Nonia
5(C) Bansh Narayan Nonia
5(d) Subhash Nonia
5(e) Kavilash Nonia
All sons of Tuni Nonia r/o village & P.S. Kochas,
District Rohtas at Sasaram.
6 Samundar Nonia son of Late Matar Nonia
7. Arjun Nonia son of late Sitaram Nonia
All residents of village post office and police
station Kochas, District Rohtas at Sasaram. ….. Opposite Parties. =======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :Mr.Kamal Nayan Chaubey, Sr. Adv.
:Mr. Ambus Nayan Chaubey, Adv.
:Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Adv.
:Mr. Siddhartha Harsh, Adv.
:Mr. Ritu Priyadarshini, Adv.
For the Opp. Party/s : Mr. Kumar Alok, Adv.
:Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP =======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL)
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.
The 1st party petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 22.4.2002 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Sasaram in Case No. 1298 (M) of 1994 declaring the possession of the 2nd Party opposite parties over the land in question.
2. During pendency of this criminal revision application, petitioner Ram Bachan Dubey died and he has been substituted by his legal heirs. Opposite Party nos. 2, 3 and 5 also died and they have also been substituted by their legal heirs.
3. The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of police report a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated against the petitioner 1st party and opposite party no. 2 to 6 along with the father of opposite party no. 7 as second party. The dispute relates to a peace of land appertaining to Khata no. 691 bearing Plot No. 1106/3868 measuring 0.10 acre situated in village Kochas appertaining to cadastral survey Khata no. 311, Plot No. 625 which was produced by Sitaram Nonia and Tuni Nonia by registered deed on 30.5.1960. Besides getting other land, said Tuni Nonia got 1 Bigha, 8 dhurs of land appertaining to cadastral survey plot no. 625. He transferred three kathas out of the aforesaid cadastral plot allotted to his share for a sum of Rs.450 on 5.5.1964 by a registered deed in favour of Ram Bachan Dubey which was amalgamated with Plot No. 980 on the north. In the revisional survey a new plot was carved out bearing Khata No. 691 Plot No. 1106/ 3868 measuring 0.10 acre showing the exclusive possession of Ram Bachan Dubey petitioner (deceased). Subsequently, during the consolidation operation the final chak khatian in respect of the land in question stands in the name of the petitioner pursuant to the final order passed in Case No. 377/162 of 1982 under Section 10(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Consolidation Act’) and Case No. 2/1993-94. The certificate of transfer in Form 17 was prepared, published and distributed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question is conclusive proof of title in terms of Section 15 of the Consolidation Act which supersedes and replaces the revisional survey in terms of Section 16 of the same. The land in question is in possession of the petitioner since the date of purchase. All the revisional records including the order of mutation followed by issuance of rent receipts are in favour of the petitioner and he constructed three shops rooms where tenants used to carry on business of wooden materials. The petitioner got electrical connection in the year 1998. The petitioner’s vendor had transferred other lands appertaining to same plot in favour of others who resumed Khas possession thereof. There was some dispute amongst purchasers and settlees claiming their right in the plot which was a larger one measuring about 6 Bigahas which led to institution of Title Suit No. 29/33 of 1974-77 which was disposed of in terms of the compromise dated 24.1.1979 fortifying and holding the right title, interest and possession of the petitioner over the land purchased by him.
4. The police report in favour of opposite party is collusive and misleading. Two sets of show-cause were filed on behalf of second party. The 2nd party opposite party no. 5 Tuni Nonia (substituted during the pendency of this application as he died) supported the case of the petitioner. Other members of 2nd party contested the claim of the petitioner. Their case is that the entry of possession in the revisional survey was wrong and the registered deed of transfer was illegal and inoperative. Tuni Nonia had no right to execute sale deed dated 5.5.1964 either in favour of this petitioner or in favour of Bindhyachal Singh or thereafter in favour of others. They mainly relied on the earlier survey records and the police report. They assailed entry of possession in the revisional survey as well as preparation of chak khatian and records in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question.
5. The case of the 2nd party (2nd Set) is that Tuni Nonia and Chandrama Nonia was never in possession of the land in question and the entry in the Khatian is wrong. The 1st party is in possession from 1964 is also wrong. The 1st party never remained in possession of the land on the basis of sale deed. The sale deed dated 5.5.1964 executed by Tuni Nonia in favour of Ram Bachan Dubey (deceased- petitioner) and Bidhyachal Tiwari is also illegal and void. Tuni Nonia was not a party in the compromise petition dated 12.12.1978.
6. Both the parties have led their evidence and after hearing both the parties the impugned order dated 22.4.2002 has been passed by the learned Executive Magistrate.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court of Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction which has no right and authority to override or impeach or ignore the order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate has not considered properly the documents of title and possession namely the registered sale deed, order of mutation, rent receipts, survey entry, the order of Consolidation Court, certificate of transfer, electricity bill etc.. The learned Magistrate has illegally relied upon the police report which is inadmissible in evidence. The reasons given in the impugned order are erroneous. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Nagendra Narayan Prasad & Ors. vs. Lakshman Goswami & Ors., reported in 1984 BBCJ 316 in which it has been held that chak carved out in accordance with the provision of Consolidation Act the order of consolidation authorities passed in accordance with the Consolidation Act cannot be challenged in the Civil Court and the learned Magistrate deciding the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot ignore the order of Consolidation Authorities.
8. In support of his contention that the police report is inadmissible as evidence in enquiry relating to possession of the party and the learned Magistrate commits illegality in utilizing fact stated in the police report in enquiry, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Japan Mohanta & Ors. vs. Dubulia Munda, reported in 1970 Cr. Law Journal 1194.
9. Learned counsel for contesting opposite parties submits that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of both the parties and has passed the impugned order in accordance with law. He has further submitted that learned Executive Magistrate has to prima facie satisfy himself with regard to actual possession of the subject matter under dispute. In support of his contention, he has referred to the decision in the case of Rabindra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2007(1) PLJR 692.
10. He has further submitted that the finding of the learned Magistrate under Section 145 can only be interfered with or alter by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in the proceeding. The learned Magistrate does not decide the illegality of possession. The learned Magistrate is only required to decide as to which party is in possession and had been in possession within two months of the initiation of the proceeding. In support of this contention, he has referred to a decision in the case of Awadha Bihari Singh vs. Brindavan Singh, reported in 2007(2) PLJR 99.
11. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that a number of documentary evidence have been filed on behalf of both the parties. There is a sale deed dated 5.5.1964 executed by Tuni Nonia in favour of Ram Bachan Dubey (1st party) with regard to Khata No. 311, Plot No. 625, area 3 Katha (Ext. 2). There is order dated 20.5.1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer with regard to the aforesaid land to be entered in the consolidation register in favour of sellor. This order has been corrected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.10.1993 passed in Case No. 377 of 1982 which has been marked as Ex. 3A. This order shows that the petitioner Ram Bachan Dubey was claimant and was in possession of the land in question but the learned Executive Magistrate has held that the second party-2nd Set are in possession of land which is not in accordance with law.
12. It is settled principal of law that the order passed under Consolidation Act and the chaks carved out in accordance with the provisions of Consolidation Act cannot be challenged in the Civil Court nor the Magistrate deciding the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. can ignore the orders of consolidation authorities. It is also settled principle of law that final order in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is subject to any decision by a Civil Court. A proceeding under Section 145 does not purport to decide the right, title and interest of the parties to the dispute. The main object of the proceeding being to decide the dispute so far the criminal court is concerned, with the sole purpose to maintain peace. Whereas, the orders passed and decision taken in a consolidation proceeding are not to be challenged in a Civil Court. In such a situation, it is difficult to hold that the learned Magistrate while deciding a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code can ignore the binding orders passed in a consolidation proceeding. If it is held that the learned Magistrate can ignore such order and can come to his own conclusion on the basis of the materials as they existed on the date the initiation of the proceeding under Section 145, it shall lead to an anomalous position in many cases, inasmuch as in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code one of the parties to the dispute can be declared to be in a possession, whereas, in the consolidation proceeding the other party is either held to be in possession or put in possession in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as has happened in the present case. As such, the only course to avoid situation will be to give effect to the orders passed in the consolidation proceedings which are final and binding in nature as it has been held in case of Nagendra Narayan Prasad (supra).
13. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, this revision application is allowed and the impugned order declaring the opposite party to be in possession of the land in dispute is set aside. The rights and claims of the parties in respect of the disputed land shall be governed in accordance with the final orders passed in the consolidation proceeding.
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
