Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
3314/2006 on 10 September, 2013
Author: Toufique Uddin
Bench: Toufique Uddin
1
(14)
10.09.2013.
(p.j.)
CRR No. 3314 of 2006
In re : Sanaul Hoque & Anr. ... Petitioners
Mr. Anand Keshari ... for the State
Seen the record. The report shows that perhaps the parties have lost interest
because notice appears to have been served but none comes. Heard the learned
Counsel for the State. The matter is of 2006. Therefore, on merit the matter is
disposed of as follows :
An application under section 482 read with section 401 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure was lodged for quashing the impugned order dated 11th July,
2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj in Criminal
Revision No. 8/2006 arising out of order dated 31.10.2005 passed by the learned
Sub-divisional Executive Magistrate, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in Case No.
39/MR/2005 under section 144(2) Cr.P.C.
The fact in short behind this revision is that one Amal Sk. was the recorded
owner of plot no. 590 Khatian no. 13 of Mouza Kapasia, J.L. No. 172 measuring
about 3 decimals of lands out of 73 decimal and his name was recorded in L.R.
record of rights and the said land recorded as bastu. The petitioners purchased the
said land from Amai Sk. by registered deed, which was executed on 8.8.2005 and
registered on 11.8.2005. The said land has been mutated in L.R. records of rights
2
in favour of the petitioners and out of 3 decimals of land has been recorded in the
name of the petitioner no. 1 and 1 decimal in the name of the petitioner no. 2. The
petitioners stated that they are in possession of the said land after purchasing the
said plot of land. The private respondents are illegally disturbing the petitioners
from peaceful possession of the said land. They filed an application under section 144 Cr.P.C. being Case No. 99/05 before the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur and false allegations were made against the petitioners and it appears from the said application that the private respondents purchased the said property and they are in possession. The learned Magistrate called for report from the B.L. & L.R.O. and police. They submitted reports before the learned court of Executive Magistrate. It appears that the petitioners are the owners of the said plot of land and they are in possession. The learned Executive Magistrate, Raiganj, passed the order on 28.11.2005 interalia stating "That O.P. is present alongwith Ld. Advocate. The petitioner is absent without steps, consulted the copy of the R.O.R. and the enquiry report including the report of O.C. Itahar, the R.O.R. speaks for in favour of title along with possession of the O.P. So the prayer for 144 Cr.P.C. cannot stand valid. Hence the case is dropped." The private respondents did not challenge the said order before any court. The petitioners filed an application under section 144 Cr.P.C. before the learned Executive Magistrate, Raiganj being Case No. 39/MR/05 against the private respondents. The learned Executive Magistrate passed the order on 1.9.2005 and issued a preventive order to maintain peace and tranquility in the area over the issue and drew up proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. against the 3 O.P. Members and restrained them all from not entering into the plot of land. The private respondents moved a revisional application being Criminal Revision No. 8/2006 before the learned Sessions Judge, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj on 11.7.2006 challenging only one order dated 31.10.2005 not order dated 1.9.2005 and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order on the ground without perusing the report of O.C. and B.L. & L.R.O. The dispute is in civil nature. The learned Executive on the basis of documents drew up proceeding and passed the preventive order and thereafter statutory period is over and the proceeding was dropped. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 31.10.2005 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate on 11th July, 2006 which is erroneous and it is liable to be set aside. Hence this case.
I have already stated that none is appearing on behalf of the petitioners despite issuance of administrative notice. Learned counsel for the State submits that the life of the case is already over and the revision has no merit at all.
Having heard the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, I am of the view that the revision has no merit. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.
(Toufique Uddin, J.)