JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule, calling upon the District Magistrate of Sylhet to show cause why the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Habigunj, dated the 10th September last, making absolute his order, under sec. 133, Cr. P.C., should not be set aside on the grounds (1) that sec. 133, I.P.C., does not apply to burial or burning grounds, and (2) that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not decided the question of bona fides raised by the Petitioner. It is unnecessary for us to enter into the first of these grounds. 2. As regards the second ground, we think that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not come to a proper finding as to the question of bona fides. It is clear to us that, as admitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Petitioner raised a claim of right to the land. He said he had a proprietary right in it; and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has come to the conclusion that if he has any right it is barred by limitation so far as he is able to judge. And he adds :--"a claim which is barred by limitation may yet I suppose possibly be regarded as bona fide. I cannot, however, think that it can be regarded by any Court as well-founded." 3. We find it difficult to understand the meaning of the above two sentences. It appears to us that if the Petitioner has a claim to the laud (and he seems to have one) there is no reason to suppose that it is not a bona fide one. We cannot tell whether it is barred by limitation or not; and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not, we think, competent to decide this question and has not decided it to our satisfaction. We do not feel certain from the observations made by the Magistrate, that the Petitioner's claim is barred; and we therefore do not, see why he should not have a bona fide claim to the land. In these circumstances the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have refrained from exercising jurisdiction. We therefore make the Rule absolute and set, aside the order complained of.