Narayan Das Rai v. Bolta Ram — 1969 DIGILAW 112 (PAT)

Judgment S.C.MISRA, J. 1. The petitioners are first party in a proceeding under Sec.145, Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to forty-five bighas of land in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Hajipur. The land in dispute is diara land and emerged out of the water of the Ganga on the western side of the river. The petitioners belong to village Sabalpur Diara in the district of Patna. 2. According to the petitioners, the disputed land had accreted to the land of the petitioners lying in village Sabalpur. According to the case of the opposite party, however, the dispute land is part of their land in Muzaffarpur district within police-station Raghopur. The petitioners claim the disputed land as part of plots Nos. 1965, 1966, 1967, 1978, 1977, 1978, 2017 and a portion of plot No. 1882 of village Sabalpur, police-station Malsalami, in the district of Patna. They laid claim to it under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation, 1825. According to the petitioners the members of the second party claiming to be settlees from the ex-landlord of Raghopur moved the officer-in-charge of Raghopur police-station, who without visiting the spot assumed that the disputed land lay within the district of Muzaffarpur, and submitted a report on the 12th January, 1967 (Annexure A to the petition) on which the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hajipur took cognizance of the proceeding on the 21st January, 1967. When the petitioners appeared before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, they objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to start a proceeding as the river Ganga is the demarcating line between the districts of Patna and Muzaffarpur with reference to the notification in the Calcutta Gazette (Part I, at page 441) Notification No. 1995-J, dated the 4th April, 1894, in which it is stated that the midstream of the river Ganga shall be the boundary between the districts of Darbhanga and Muzaffarpur, on one side and the district of Patna, on the other and the mainstream of the river Gandak shall be the boundary between the districts of Muzaffarpur and Saran. Reference was also made to the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated the 17th July. 1953. showing that the northern boundary of Patna Municipal Corporation is the midstream of the river Ganga. Reference was also made to the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated the 17th July. 1953. showing that the northern boundary of Patna Municipal Corporation is the midstream of the river Ganga. The petitioners also claim that the demarcating line between the lands of Raghopur police-station in the district of Muzaffarpur on one side and the lands appertaining to the district of Patna, on the other side, has been found as a fact by the judgment and order passed in the Patna High Court in Criminal Revn. No. 746 of 1963. by S. P. Singh J. on the 12th November, 1963. and by the judgment and order dated the 3rd October, 1958. passed by Imam. J., in Criminal Revn. No. 423 of 1958. Relying on these materials objection was filed by the petitioners to the assumption of jurisdiction over the proceeding by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hajipur, as also the Police Inspector of Raghopur police-station, whereas in fact, it should have been within police-station Malsalami and the proceeding should have been started in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Barh. 3. Shri P. K. Prasad, Magistrate, who was acting as Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Hajipur on the 10th of March, 1967. directed that he would hold local inspection on the 15th March. 1967, Shri Prasad, in pursuance of the order passed by him on the 10th March, 1967. visited village Sabalpur and on the 17th March, 1967, decided the preliminary point against the petitioners on the footing of the report dated the 15th March, 1967, holding that the channel of the river Ganga near village Sabalpur had completely dried up and that the main stream of the river was flowing at a distance of 11/2 miles, as he heard, towards the north of the disputed land and so the cadastral map of the village Rustampur was allowed to prevail vide annexure B to the petition. It may be stated that the flow of the river to the east of the disputed land is from north to south. The petitioners have accordingly moved this Court for determination of the question as to which Court would have jurisdiction and in which district the land would be taken to lie. i. e.. in the district of Patna or in the district of Muzaffarpur. The petitioners have accordingly moved this Court for determination of the question as to which Court would have jurisdiction and in which district the land would be taken to lie. i. e.. in the district of Patna or in the district of Muzaffarpur. This matter was referred by a learned single Judge to the Division Bench before whom the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1960 Pat 342 : (1960 Cri LJ 1128), (Ramgobind Singh V/s. Askrit Singh) was cited in support of the proposition that the rule of midstream of the river Ganga would not be the test for ascertaining the criminal jurisdiction and that the jurisdiction of the police-station concerned would be the only criterion for exercising criminal jurisdiction with reference to Sec. 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha appearing in support of the petitioners challenged the finding of fact of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate as incorrect as also the decision of the Bench of this Court referred to above. Mr. Sinha referred to Sections 7, 10, 12, 13 and 177, Code of Criminal Procedure and contended that in case any piece of land shifted from one district to another, it would be the duty of the authorities concerned to make necessary notification with regard to the police-station in respect of such a piece of land but the rule of midstream of the Ganga being the dividing line between the districts of Patna and Muzaffarpur must prevail. The learned Judges of the Division Bench analysed the reasoning of Sahai. J., who delivered the judgment of that Bench, and with whom Untwalia. J. agreed and came to the conclusion that the decision required reconsideration inasmuch as although it referred to Section 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it did not refer to any other section such as Sections 155, 156, 173, 177 and 190. The learned Judges expressed their disagreement with the conclusion of Sahai. J. agreed and came to the conclusion that the decision required reconsideration inasmuch as although it referred to Section 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it did not refer to any other section such as Sections 155, 156, 173, 177 and 190. The learned Judges expressed their disagreement with the conclusion of Sahai. J. in so far as he laid stress on the jurisdiction of a police-station as the determining factor in deciding which Magistrate would try an offence or proceeding within the limits of a particular police-station and held :- "Here too the local limits of a Magistrates jurisdiction is prominent nd not the local limits of a police station, and therefore, the officer in charge of the police station situated within the local limits of the Magistrates jurisdiction alone can submit report regarding a dispute in respect of some property within the territorial limits of the Magistrates jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid provisions and similar other provisions in the Code, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the jurisdiction of a police station does not necessarily determine the criminal jurisdiction of a Magistrate, and in case some land in dispute has on account of the shifting of the midstream of the river, accreted to another district the officer in charge of the old police-station located in the old district cannot have any jurisdiction over the area that has accreted to the new district. These arguments of Mr. Sinha are quite plausible and they raise some doubts in the correctness of the aforesaid decision of the bench of this Court." Accordingly, their Lordships ordered that this application should be placed before a larger bench for appropriate orders. 5. These arguments of Mr. Sinha are quite plausible and they raise some doubts in the correctness of the aforesaid decision of the bench of this Court." Accordingly, their Lordships ordered that this application should be placed before a larger bench for appropriate orders. 5. It may be stated therefore, that although the learned referring Judges have not formulated precisely the question to be answered by the Full Bench it may be taken that the following questions arise for consideration: (1) Whether midstream of the river Ganga as between the districts of Patna and Muzaffarpur would be the demarcating line between the two districts for administrative purposes, which would not only be for civil purposes but also criminal jurisdiction or if on account of a change in the course of the river any piece of land lying on the Muzaffarpur side of the river be found to be lying on the Patna side, it would still be treated as a part of Muzaffarpur and the land lying on the Patna side of the river before change in the course of the river Ganga being found lying on the Muzaffarpur side would be deemed to be part of Patna district in spite of the change of the course of the river for administrative purposes which would include both civil and criminal jurisdictions. (2) Whether the jurisdiction of the police-station should be the determining factor in regard to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate for trial of any case or enquiry for passing necessary orders or the two jurisdictions may differ. (3) Whether the area of the police-station also would differ automatically with the change in the course of the river Ganga so that the area of the police-station also would increase or decrease in respect of the land contiguous to the old boundaries of the police-station, provided that the land would be found to lie between the old boundary of the police-station and the river Ganga. 6. It may be stated that in course of argument Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha, supporting the petition has also referred to another Division Bench decision of this Court in Partipal V/s. Dip Narain. (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927. Before I proceed to deal with the correctness of the decision in Ramgovind Singhs case. AIR 1960 Pat 342 : (1960 Cri LJ 1128), which has been doubted by Ramratna Singh and Anwar Ahmad. Lalnarayan Sinha, supporting the petition has also referred to another Division Bench decision of this Court in Partipal V/s. Dip Narain. (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927. Before I proceed to deal with the correctness of the decision in Ramgovind Singhs case. AIR 1960 Pat 342 : (1960 Cri LJ 1128), which has been doubted by Ramratna Singh and Anwar Ahmad. JJ., who have referred this case to a larger Bench. I may refer to the decision of this Court in Partipals case. (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927. In that case also a proceeding under Sec. 144, Code of Criminal Procedure was started which was subsequently converted into one under Sec.145 as in the present case also the proceeding initially started under Sec.144 has been subsequently converted into a proceeding under Sec.145. That related to a piece of land in the district of Shahabad. Order was passed in that case by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Arrah Sadar. whose jurisdiction was objected to by the petitioners on the ground that the disputed land formed part of the district of Saran and hence it was only the Magistrate of Chapra who would start any proceeding relating to that land and it must be taken to have fallen within his jurisdiction for initiating a proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that case also, however, opinion was expressed that when such a dispute arises, what really matters in a proceeding under Sec.145 is the consideration of the question as to the police-station within whose jurisdiction a certain area of the land in dispute falls. To that extent, therefore, the decision in Partipals case. (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927 lays down the same principle as the decision in the case of Ramgobind Singh AIR 1960 Pat 342 : (1960 Cri LJ 1128). The Division Bench however while not referring to the decision of this Court in Partipals case. (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927 felt some doubt with regard to the following observation in AIR 1960 Pat 342 : (1960 Cri LJ 1128) : "The limits of the police-station are fixed by notifications under that provision. The Division Bench however while not referring to the decision of this Court in Partipals case. (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927 felt some doubt with regard to the following observation in AIR 1960 Pat 342 : (1960 Cri LJ 1128) : "The limits of the police-station are fixed by notifications under that provision. So long as no alteration is made by the State Government in the limits or local areas of a police station lying within the jurisdiction of one of the two districts, the district which has been exercising jurisdiction over the police station will continue to exercise jurisdiction over the areas within the limits specified in the notification. In these circumstances, I do not think that the limits of either of the districts for purposes of criminal jurisdiction go on changing as a result of fluctuation in the midstream of river Ganges." Referring, however, to the definition of "police-station" under Sec. 4 (1) (s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 155 and 156 with regard to the lodging of first information and investigation of a case as also to Sec.177 which lays down that every offence shall be enquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed, the learned Judges making the reference felt that the police officer has to take orders from the Court of a Magistrate of the district where the land lies and under Sec. 144 the Magistrate is empowered to direct any person to obtain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession. The learned referring Judges accordingly appeared to be impressed with the argument on behalf of the petitioners that the jurisdiction of a police-station does not necessarily determine the criminal jurisdiction of a Magistrate and in case some land in dispute has on account of the shifting of the midstream of the river accreted to another district the officer-in-charge of the old police-station located in the old district cannot have any jurisdiction over the area that has accreted to the new district. Accordingly the reference in question was made by the Division Bench for consideration of the question by a larger Bench. 7. It may be stated that according to Sahai J. (in Ramgobind Singhs case. AIR 1960 Pat 342 : (1960 Cri LJ 1128)) the Division Bench in Partipals case. Accordingly the reference in question was made by the Division Bench for consideration of the question by a larger Bench. 7. It may be stated that according to Sahai J. (in Ramgobind Singhs case. AIR 1960 Pat 342 : (1960 Cri LJ 1128)) the Division Bench in Partipals case. (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927 could not be held to have accepted the midstream test as the test of criminal jurisdiction of Shahabad and Saran districts. As to the test of midstream of the river Ganga being the determining factor in regard to the criminal jurisdiction as to whether the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in the district south of the Ganga or the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction on the north of the Ganga will be competent to deal with a case arising on the left bank or the right bank of the river their Lordships made the observation as quoted above. 8. reference to the decision of this Court in Pratipals case. (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927 makes it clear that the question whether the midstream of the river Ganga will determine the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure was considered in that decision as well. The case of Punardeo Naraia Singh V/s. Ram Sarup Roy. (1898) ILR 25 Cal 858 was referred to in which it was observed that the "deep stream" existed that is ten years ago. In that case it was observed that it was a matter spoken of in the notification of December, 1888 must be the deep stream as it then of notoriety that the channels of Indian rivers change very materially and often in a very short time. What was the deep stream in 1888 might not be the deep stream of 1897. and it was consequently difficult to say what really was the deep stream which formed the boundary between the two districts. After quoting from this decision the following passage is to be found in that judgment (Partipals case). "It is emphasised that the mere recital in paragraph 130 of the survey report of the fact that criminal jurisdiction in respect of land bounded by the Ganga will depend upon tile position of the deep stream cannot modify the provisions of Section 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am unable to accede to this contention. "It is emphasised that the mere recital in paragraph 130 of the survey report of the fact that criminal jurisdiction in respect of land bounded by the Ganga will depend upon tile position of the deep stream cannot modify the provisions of Section 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am unable to accede to this contention. In my opinion Section 7 of the Code applies to a situation where there are fixed boundaries and nature does not introduce an element of uncertainty. Paragraph 130 of the Final Report on survey and settlement operations in the district of Shahabad refers to a different situation inasmuch as the boundaries which are changed beyond recognition by the Ganga in this part of the district will give rise to an anomalous position so far as police administration and criminal jurisdiction in general are concerned. In the circumstances, Sec. 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not in conflict with para 130 of the survey and settlement report: nor in my opinion does the decision in the above Calcutta case stand in the way inasmuch as it relates purely to a notification of the Central Government and where again the conflict was resolved with reference to Sec.182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without determining whether Mutier Diara where the offence was committed fell within the boundary of the district of Balia or Saran between which the river Gogra flows and in which the Diara was situated." Later on the following conclusion was recorded by the Division Bench : "In view of the conclusion arrived at above all that is to be seen is whether the present case is one where criminal jurisdiction can be ascertained in terms of paragraph 130 of the Shahabad Survey and Settlement Operations Report. Closely bound up with it would be the question as to whether it is a matter of doubtful jurisdiction. The latter part of the proposition will also depend upon whether the land is in Barhare police-station or any other police-station of Shahabad or not so." From this it is clear that paragraph 130 of the survey and settlement report for the district of Shahabad (1907-1916) was accepted as the determining factor in regard to the criminal jurisdiction. Sahai. J., in Ramgobind Singhs case. Sahai. J., in Ramgobind Singhs case. AIR 1960 Pat 342 : ((1960) Cri LJ 1128) with respect was not right in holding that paragraph 130 was not made the basis in that case, because in paragraph 130 clear statement is made that "the boundary of the criminal jurisdiction is the middle of deep stream of the Ganges and this varies materially from year to year." It is thus clear that the object of inserting the principle of midstream boundary for determining the criminal jurisdiction of the district of Shahabad in so far as it is affected by the shift in the course of the river Ganga which flows generally on the north of the district was accepted to avoid the necessity of almost annual fixation of boundary between the two districts for determining the criminal jurisdiction of the police and magistracy of the district of Shahabad as against those of the district of Saran. In notification No. 1995-J. published in the Calcutta Gazette (Part I. at page 441) of April 11, 1894. bearing date the 4th April, 1894, the following passage occurs : "It is hereby notified for general information that for administrative purposes the main stream of the river Ganges shall be the boundary between the districts of Darbhanga and Muzaffarpur on one side and the district of Patna on the other and the main stream of the river Gunduck shall be the boundary between the districts of Muzaffarpur and Saran." It is obvious that the object of this notification could not be to accept the boundary of that year as the basis for determining the administrative jurisdiction of these districts for all time to come as appears to have been observed in the Calcutta case referred to above, what was intended really in this notification was to provide for jurisdiction based on the rale of convenience in areas where frequent changes take place on account of shifting stream of the Ganga and Mr. Hubback, in paragraph 130, has referred to that fact. The same principle has been accepted by the Government as stated in Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) notification No. M/R1-503/52-588/2 L. S. G. dated the 17th July, 1953, with regard to the northern boundary of the district of Patna being the midstream of river Ganga in relation to the northern limit of Patna Municipal Corporation. The same principle has been accepted by the Government as stated in Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) notification No. M/R1-503/52-588/2 L. S. G. dated the 17th July, 1953, with regard to the northern boundary of the district of Patna being the midstream of river Ganga in relation to the northern limit of Patna Municipal Corporation. In my opinion, therefore, it is clear beyond doubt that whenever the situation of a piece of land on either side of river Ganga is affected as between the two districts of Muzaffarpur and Patna it is difficult every time to issue a notification under Sec. 4 (1) (s) determining which police station shall have jurisdiction over which land emerging out of the Ganga and, therefore it is laid down that for the sake of administrative convenience the midstream of the river should be the determining factor both for the civil and criminal purposes and the area of the police stations also both in the districts of Patna and Muzaffarpur extending up to the bank of the Ganga must be taken to be automatically increasing or decreaseing according to the change in the course of the river Ganga dividing the two districts its midstream being the boundary line between them. Since the area of the police-station is contemplated to be increasing and decreasing with the change in the course of the river and for administrative purposes the land on the left bank of the Ganga would be deemed to lie in the district of Muzaffarpur and the land on the right bank of the river Ganga would be deemed to lie in the district of Patna. it is obvious that the police-station lying within either district will have jurisdiction to enquire into cases arising on the left or right bank of the Ganga, respectively, and likewise the Magistrate of one District or the other will have jurisdiction pari passu with the police station. it is obvious that the police-station lying within either district will have jurisdiction to enquire into cases arising on the left or right bank of the Ganga, respectively, and likewise the Magistrate of one District or the other will have jurisdiction pari passu with the police station. If that be the position it will avoid the necessity of frequent notifications in regard to the change of the areas of the police-stations lying towards the bank of the river on one side or the other; and if that be so, it is clear that the land on the left bank from midstream of the river must be taken to lie in the district of Muzaffarpur in this case comprised within the Hajipur Sub-Division and the land on the right bank must be taken to lie within the district of Patna, as in this case, within Barn Sub-Division and police-station Malsalami. I may, however, emphasise, as I took good care to explain also in Partipals case. (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927 that in spite of this administrative change in the jurisdiction of the police and the magistrates on one side in one district or another, this will not affect the rights of persons who claim ownership or possession over the land whether it would be taken to lie in the district of Muzaffarpur or in the district of Patna inasmuch as the rule of administrative convenience cannot have the effect to affecting private rights of the parties. In my opinion therefore the observation made in Ramgobind Singhs case. AIR 1960 Pat 342 : (1960 Cri LJ 1128) in so far as it lays down that the rule of midstream being the boundary between the two districts for criminal purposes is not a correct criterion cannot be accepted as sound. Sahai. J. has referred to the fact that in that case reliance was placed only on Mr. Hubbacks report (paragraph 130) on the survey and settlement operations in Shahabad in the year 1907-1916. There could conceivably be no other evidence because it is the Government alone that is competent to decide the jurisdiction of the district in a region of uncertain areas on account of the action of the river Ganga or such other rivers with fluvial action. Mr. Hubbacks report was like all such reports and published under the authority of the Government. Mr. Hubbacks report was like all such reports and published under the authority of the Government. The Government has laid it down that for administrative purposes in general and criminal jurisdiction in particular including the automatic change in the jurisdiction of the police station which would take place according to the change in the course of the river. Court of law is bound to act upon that principle if a question arises as to the police station which will have jurisdiction in regard to the disputed piece of land or investigation into an offence as the case may be or the Magistrate of which district shall have jurisdiction to enquire into or try the case arising in such regions. It runs thus- "130. Areas according to criminal jurisdiction.- It will appear from the foregoing remarks that the total area of the district and the areas of the individual thanas which are bounded by the Ganges are not capable of easy determination. The boundary of the criminal jurisdiction is the middle of the deep stream of the Ganges and this varies materially from year to year. I have had the area which lies between the limit of cadastral survey and the middle of the deep stream as topographically surveyed in the course of these operations calculated by Mr. J. H. Murphy the Deputy Director of Surveys, and it is given in the following statement :- Thana Area of thana as given in col. 8 of statement in paragraph above. Add area excluded from the record of rights but lying south of the Ganges deep stream. Deduct area inclueded in the record-of-rights but lying north of the Ganges deep stream. Area of thana according to criminal jurisdictionin square miles. (Table) Quoted from page 39 of the Final Report on the Survey and Settlement operations of Shahabad 1907-16. Thus the limits of police-station by the side of the river Ganga also change on the side contiguous to the bank automatically with the shift in the course of the river Ganga and no formal notification is at all required to make the emerged land as part of a particular police station as illustrated above. Although this point was clearly brought out in Partipals case the actual order in the case rested upon its own particular facts. Although this point was clearly brought out in Partipals case the actual order in the case rested upon its own particular facts. I have purposely not referred in this connection to the various other aspects of the matter which were referred to in detail in (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927 because I wish to make it clear in this judgment that it is not necessary to go into the question of doubtful jurisdiction any longer since I am inclined to hold that for the purposes of criminal jurisdiction the midstream of the river Ganga should be the dividing line between the police-stations and the Magistrates have normal jurisdiction in the district of Patna on the right bank and the district of Muzaffarpur or Darbhanga. as the case may be on the left bank of the river Ganga. In my opinion, therefore, the observation in AIR 1960 Pat 342 : (1960 Cri LJ 1128) in so far as it laid down that the midstream of river Ganga cannot be taken to be the dividing line for criminal jurisdiction between the districts of Patna and Muzaffarpur cannot be accepted as correct. The test of police-station having jurisdiction must be taken to be correct in so far as it was taken to be the basis both in AIR 1950 Pat 342 : ( (1960) Cri LJ 1128). (Ramgobind Singhs case) and (1954) ILR 33 Pat 927. (Partipals case). That question has become academic in view of what is being laid down here that the area of the police station also shall automatically increase or decrease in so far as the increase or decrease occurs between the bed of the river and the normal jurisdiction of the police-station or of the Magistrate concerned. Accordingly the land which emerges and which accretes to the land lying within a particular police station on the left bank or the right bank must be taken according to this rule to form part of the jurisdiction of that particular police station. It will avoid the necessity of annual notifications which in the very nature of the matter it is difficult to bring out. I must here record by concurrence with the learned Judges of this Court in the two unreported decisions (Criminal Revn. No. 423 of 1958 decided on 3-10-1958 (Pat) and Criminal Revn. It will avoid the necessity of annual notifications which in the very nature of the matter it is difficult to bring out. I must here record by concurrence with the learned Judges of this Court in the two unreported decisions (Criminal Revn. No. 423 of 1958 decided on 3-10-1958 (Pat) and Criminal Revn. No. 746 of 1963 decided on 12-11-1963 (Pat)) wherein the same view has been accepted and given effect to. Both these cases relate to Raghopur police-station on one side in the district of Muzaffarpur on the left bank of Ganga and the Sub-Division of Barh, in the district of Patna, on the right bank of the river. In the present case since it was not in dispute that the disputed land lies on the right of the midstream of the river Ganga as it flows at present the enquiry must be taken up by the police officer of Malasalami police-station and it must be conducted by the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction police-station Malsalami lies. Having arrived at this conclusion, I must hold that the order passed by the learned Magistrate of Hajipur to the effect that although the disputed land lies west (generally south) of the midstream of the Ganga nevertheless it must be held that it fell within the jurisdiction of Raghopur Police-station of Hajipur Sub-Division and hence the enquiry into the present dispute must be taken up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Hajipur and the police of Raghopur police-station must be held to be competent to report on the situation, cannot be accepted as correct. 9 The application is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Hajipur is set aside and it is held that the matter should be taken up by the Magistrate in Patna district having jurisdiction over village Sabalpur in Malsalami police-station. 9 The application is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Hajipur is set aside and it is held that the matter should be taken up by the Magistrate in Patna district having jurisdiction over village Sabalpur in Malsalami police-station. It must, however, be made clear beyond doubt that this will not affect the private right of the owner of the land who held it while it was on the left bank of the Ganga; and if it can be established that the land in dispute really was the land of the party who held it when it was on the left bank of the river he can succeed in asserting his right irrespective of the fact that the enquiry has been taken up by the police of Malsalami or by a Magistrate in the district of Patna. I have purposely not referred to other considerations which were exhaustively gone into in Partipals case. ((1954) ILR 33 Pat 927) as to when an enquiry has been concluded by a Magistrate, a situation of doubtful jurisdiction in so far as it is a procedural matter might not affect the merit of the decision. In the instant case, however, the matter has been taken up at an earlier stage and no evidence has been recorded by the learned Magistrate of Hajipur. It is desirable that the matter should be taken up in the proper Court in the district of Patna which is the rule laid down in the notification of the Government of Bengal in 1894 as also in the notification by the Government of Bihar (Extraordinary) in July, 1953. U.N.SINHA, J. 10 I agree. K.B.N.SINGH, J. 11 I agree.