Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 799 (JHR)

Shatrughan Ojha v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-06

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2016
ORDER : 1. Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Medni Nagar, Palamau in Miscellaneous Case No. 1291 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”) has been made absolute against the petitioner with observation regarding the share of the parties in the land in dispute. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of this revision application, in short, is that at the instance of this petitioner, an application was filed in the court of learned S.D.M., Medini Nagar for initiation of proceeding under Section 144 of the Code in respect of the lands in question measuring an area of 30 decimals appertaining to plot no. 304 under Khata no. 39, 12 decimals of plot no. 294 under Khata no. 1, 28 decimals of plot no. 585 under Khata no. 40, 28 decimals of plot no. 785 under Khata no. 40 and 15½ decimals of plot nos. 790 and 792 under Khata no. 40 in Mouza-Jore and by order dated 12.11.2015, the proceeding was initiated and a notice was issued to both the parties. Thereafter, both the parties filed their respective show-causes. The petitioner in his show-cause pleaded his right, title and interest over the lands in question. Similarly, the members of second party in their show-cause pleaded that proceeding initiated against them is not maintainable and they also claimed possession over the lands in question on the basis of title acquired by them. The court below after considering the pleadings and the documents available on record, passed the order impugned as indicated above. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as bad in law and perverse seriously contended that the court below exceeded its jurisdiction and defined the shares of the parties, which is beyond the purview of Section 144 of the Code. It was also submitted that the 60 days’ time as envisaged under Section 144 of the Code has already lapsed, hence the parties may be directed to move before the appropriate court for adjudication of their dispute and the observation made by the court below regarding share of the parties may be held to be not binding on any of the party. 4. 4. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties fairly submitted that the statutory period of 60 days has passed but the court below has rightly directed both the parties to maintain peace till the adjudication of the dispute between the parties and there is no cogent ground to interfere in the order impugned. 5. On perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that the court below relying upon the report submitted by the Police Inspector has exceeded its jurisdiction and has defined the share of the parties, which is beyond the purview of Section 144 of the Code. It is well settled that except a competent court of jurisdiction, no court or authority has any right to give any declaration relating to right and title over a land. Apparently, the court has given observation on the share of the parties relying upon the report of the Police Inspector. 6. In view of the fact that due to expiry of the statutory period of 60 days, the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code has lost its effect, I hold that the order impugned dated 05.12.2015 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Medni Nagar in Miscellaneous Case No. 1291 of 2015 will not, in any way, affect the right and title of any party over the land in question and will not be binding on any of the party. The aggrieved person, whoever it may be, may move before a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief/declaration. 7. This application stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Application disposed of.