Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1147 (PAT)

Ram Balak Prasad v. The State of Bihar

2014-11-19

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2014
Judgment Heard Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned advocate for the petitioners. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 3. The State is being represented by Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. 4. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.03.2007, passed by the learned Magistrate, Gaya in Misc. Case No. 161/87, whereby the Anchal Adhikari, Gaya was directed to inspect the site of the disputed land and report about its nature and possession. 5. Four plots of land, total measuring an area of 3.27 acres, situated in Mohalla - Alamgirpur in the district of Gaya, were in dispute. Apprehending breach of peace with regard to such disputed land, a 144 proceeding was initiated and Misc. Case No. 320/63 was brought into existence. 6. In the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 320/63, the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Gaya, vide his order dated 12.08.1969, declared the possession of the opposite parties in the present application. The aforesaid order of the Magistrate was challenged before the High Court, Patna in revision (Cr. Revision No. 2059/1969). The aforementioned revision application was heard on 10.11.1971 when the order of the Magistrate was set aside and the case was remanded to the court of the Magistrate to write out a fresh order in accordance with law. Pursuant to such order of remand by the High Court way back in the year 1971, Misc. Case No. 320/63 became alive. However, by that time, the entire record had been destroyed as major part of it was eaten up by white-ants. 7. After about more than two decades of passing of the order in the Criminal Revision by the High Court, the petitioners received a notice on 29.10.1990, purported to have been issued in connection with Case No. 4150/90. The notice, referred to above, indicated that the petitioners had to appear in the court of the Magistrate on 30.10.1990 for giving evidence and for filing written statement with respect to the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. This was challenged by the petitioners before the District and Sessions Judge, Gaya in Criminal Revision No. 26/93/18/91. The notice, referred to above, indicated that the petitioners had to appear in the court of the Magistrate on 30.10.1990 for giving evidence and for filing written statement with respect to the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. This was challenged by the petitioners before the District and Sessions Judge, Gaya in Criminal Revision No. 26/93/18/91. The learned revisional court allowed the revision application by his order dated 09.12.1993 on the ground that such a notice was sent to the petitioners at the instance of the opposite parties when they had made a prayer for reaping the crops after auctioning of the land in question in their favour. The revisional court was of the opinion that the notices issued to the petitioners were not clear as Misc. Case No. 320/63 was already alive for consideration. 8. After the order passed in the revision, referred to above, till about the end of the year 1995, the proceedings with respect to Misc. Case No. 320/63 remained pending. A decision thereafter was taken to have the records reconstructed. In compliance of such a unanimous decision, the opposite parties submitted the documents. The petitioners could not furnish the documents from their side as their documents also had been destroyed by then. In any view of the matter, the records stood reconstructed and fresh number was given to the case as Case No. 161/1987 (T.R. No. 57/2007). 9. After all this had happened, an application was filed on behalf of the first party in the proceedings (opposite parties herein) seeking the disputed land inspected through the agency appointed by the learned Magistrate. Such a prayer was allowed by order dated 23.03.2007. The aforesaid order is under challenge. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the order dated 23.03.2007 on the ground that without taking any steps for substituting the legal heirs of some of the members of the second party, who have died, such an order was passed. It was further argued that after passage of such a long time, i.e. nearly five decades, most of the original contestants had left for their heavenly abode. 11. The parties to the dispute, it has been stated, have already approached the competent court seeking declaration of their title. The petitioners, some of whom who are alive, claimed their right, title and interest by virtue of the settlement in their favour by the ex-landlord. 11. The parties to the dispute, it has been stated, have already approached the competent court seeking declaration of their title. The petitioners, some of whom who are alive, claimed their right, title and interest by virtue of the settlement in their favour by the ex-landlord. Since they are in possession of the property in question, which fact also has been testified by the records of the survey authority, there was no reason for the learned Magistrate to have issued directions to Anchal Adhikari for holding a local inspection. 12. On perusal of the records, it appears that the entire proceedings have become meaningless. The dispute between the parties over the four plots of land in question had begun in the year 1963 and till date no order has been passed by the executive court regarding the possession over such land. Whatsoever apprehension of breach of peace was there, the same stood the test of time and nothing untoward happened. It can safely be presumed that there was no breach of peace over the said plots of land. The presumption is based on the twin logic of no subsequent order having been passed in Misc. Case No. 320/63 and no dispute with respect to possession having been raked up in the preceding years. 13. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the whole process/proceedings have lost their utility. The case was kept alive because of the order passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision, way back in the year 1971. 14. Considering the fact that there is no apprehension of breach of peace and there is no dispute today with respect to the plots in question so far as the possession is concerned, the parties would be sub-served well under the aegis of law if the entire proceeding is consigned. 15. Viewed from this angle, the order impugned dated 23.03.2007 is set aside. The entire proceeding in the case, referred to above, is quashed. In case, there is any apprehension of breach of peace or dispute with respect to possession of the said plots of land, proceeding could begin afresh. 16. The application is thus allowed. Application allowed.