Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 606 (GAU)

Dharma Proja v. Momina Khatun

2019-05-16

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This Revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dhansiri in MC No.08/2015, whereby the case filled by respondent was allowed by directing the petitioner who is the second party of the said case to be evicted from the disputed land. 2. I have heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also heard Mr. S.B. Rahman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The respondent herein Musstt. Momina Khatun filed a complaint raising the dispute that although she purchased the disputed land of 8 bighas by a registered sale deed and her name was mutated in relevant document but despute she is not in a position to occupy the land due to the disturbance created by the petitioner herein namely, Dharma Proja (petitioner herein). On the basis of the said, the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was drawn by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhansiri, Sarupathar vide MC No.08/2015 and in response to the notice that was served the respondent (petitioner herein) contested the case by filing written statement claiming his possession and title over the disputed land. Both the parties also adduced evidence in support of their respective claim. On 20.03.2017, the court passed an order that the 1st party is the owner of the disputed land by virtue of purchase through registered sale deed and her name also mutated and the 2nd party is also cultivating over the said land until 2015. As the case is filed for declaration of title and possession thereof the learned court held that parties should approach to the civil court for redressal of the dispute and the case was disposed of accordingly. 4. Subsequently, another order was passed on 30.07.2017 whereby the court again passed a separate order on the same issue and directed the 2nd party be evicted and dispossessed as they are wrongfully occupied the disputed land. The Circle Officer, Sarupathar Revenue Circle was directed to execute the order within 15 days from the date of the order. The aforesaid order is now being impugned in the present petition on the ground that as the matter was disposed of finally by virtue of the order dated 20.03.2019, so the second order passed by the learned court is not sustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. The aforesaid order is now being impugned in the present petition on the ground that as the matter was disposed of finally by virtue of the order dated 20.03.2019, so the second order passed by the learned court is not sustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have gone through the LCR that has been produced before this Court and the relevant orders passed by the Court. It is surprising to see that the learned court has finally adjudicated the matter by its order dated 20.03.2017 after examining all material on record with a direction to the parties to approach the Civil Court for redressal of their dispute and there cannot be any occasion to pass such a subsequent order dated 30.07.2017. The documents and the LCR also do not reveal anything which may warrant for passing of such subsequent order by the court. Once the court has disposed of the matter by a speaking order, the same cannot be again taken up by the Court. Moreover in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., a court can only declare possession not an order of eviction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has already challenged the aforesaid impugned order and today the learned counsel for the respondent was at a surprise to see such subsequent order on record as it was not passed in their presence. On the face of the record, I have no hesitation to say that the impugned order dated 30.07.2017 is non-est in law and quite illegal and liable to be interfered. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. 5. Both the parties may approach to the appropriate forum for redressal of their dispute as has already been observed by the Court in the earlier order dated 20.03.2017. 6. The petition stands disposed of. 7. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this order.