shops said to have been looted and also to produce basgit
parcha along with rent receipts relating to the P.O. lands and
eventually ... alleged land in question have not been furnished and
admittedly was not basgit or belonging to the complainant and
wrong documents of basgit settlement
which it has been
clearly recorded that a basgit parcha was issued in favour of the
ancestor of the petitioners in the year
belongs to petitioner no. 2
which he has obtained under the Basgit Parcha.
Considering the afore-noted aspects of the
matter, the petitioners, above-named
been implicated in this case due to land
dispute inasmuch as Basgit Parcha was issued in favour of the
side of the petitioners, which side
that 22 persons had the intention of killing. There is a Basgit
Parcha issued in favour of the petitioners. The prosecution party
were trying
dispute is with regard to land given under the
'basgit parcha' to both the parties and they have been implicated
in the false
counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
petitioner is a Basgit Parcha holder having been settled land
around the pond as per the Government
