Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 402 (PAT)

Bali Devi v. State Of Bihar

2001-05-03

ANIL KUMAR SINHA

body2001
Judgment ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. These revision applications have been directed against the order dated 6.1.1997 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Jehanabad in case No. 1048 (M) 1981 under Section 145, Cr PC whereby he declared the possession of the State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the basis of police report submitted on 20.10.1981 a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC was initiated against the members of the 1 st party and the second party which was later on converted into under Section 145, Cr PC vide order dated 13.11.1981. The State of Bihar was added as party on 20.7.1984 and the State of Bihar by filing written statement took the stand that the disputed property was evacuee property which vested in the State of Bihari The claim of the second party was that they purchased the disputed land by three registered sale deeds dated 23.12.1948, 12.5.1949 and 28.2.1951 and the custodian of the evacuee property confirmed the aforesaid sale deeds under Section 40-D of the Evacuee Property Act, by his order dated 31.3.1952 and 4.11.1970 (Annexures 2 and 3). It was next contended that the second party dealt with the portion of the disputed property by transferring some of the lands in favour of different persons and the State of Bihar acknowledged the second party as well as his uansferee as tenant by granting rent receipt in respect of the lands in their possession and the rent receipts were filgd in the proceeding. It was urged that the dispute regarding possession arose between the 1st party and the second party on 30.9.1981 which gave rise to the submission of police report on 20.10.1981 that there is apprehension of breach of peace between the members of the 1st party and the second party relating to the possession of the disputed land. As already stated above the proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC was converted into Section 145, Cr PC vide order dated 13.11.1981 and the parties submitted their written statement as well as oral evidence in support of their respective claims. The State of Bihar did not adduce any documentary or oral evidence except making statement that the disputed property was evacuee property of the State of Bihar. The Executive Magistrate however, declared the possession of the State over the disputed land which was challenged in revision before this Court, vide Cri. Rev. The State of Bihar did not adduce any documentary or oral evidence except making statement that the disputed property was evacuee property of the State of Bihar. The Executive Magistrate however, declared the possession of the State over the disputed land which was challenged in revision before this Court, vide Cri. Rev. No. 510 of 1989. This Court set aside the order passed by the Executive Magistrate and remitted back the matter to him for passing the order afresh in accordance with law. While setting aside the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, it was observed that the Magistrate has declared the possession of the State of Bihar third party without any evidence oral or documentary adduced by the State of Bihar. The impugned order is not based on balance of evidence accordingly the order passed by the Executive Magistrate was set aside. 2. It seems that thereafter a criminal miscellaneous application was filed before this Court and a direction was given to the Magistrate to decide the matter within the period of three months. The Magistrate accordingly passed the impugned order within the aforesaid period and again declared the possession of the State of Bihar over the disputed land. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second party submitted that inspite of the directions given by this Court in Crl. Revision No. 510 of 1989, the Magistrate committed the same mistake, in as much, as without any evidence declared the possession of the State of Bihar. Learned counsel for the State conceded to this extent that the State of Bihar has not adduced any documentary or oral evidence after the order was passed by this Court in the aforesaid revision application. 4. Learned counsel also submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to show that the disputed property was ever the evacuee property so the question of vesting the property in the State of Bihar does not arise at all. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions which have been advanced by the learned counsel, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 6.1.1997 is. manifestly illegal and arbitrary which cannot be sustained. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions which have been advanced by the learned counsel, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 6.1.1997 is. manifestly illegal and arbitrary which cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Executive Magistrate, Jehanabad for passing a fresh order in accordance with law by a reasoned order discussing the evidence both oral and documentary available on the record for his coming to the definite conclusion. Needless to that, that it is a very old matter which requires expeditious disposal. Therefore, the Executive Magistrate should try to dispose of the matter preferably within the period of six months.