AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.K. Misra, J.—Opposite Parties 2 and 4 are the sons of Opposite Party 1. The petitioner (member first party) as plaintiff succeeded in a
suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in S. A. No. 052/64 which was dismissed in his favour on 11 -8-66. In pursuance of the
decree, delivery of possession was effected on 2-10-66. Apprehending disturbance in possession the petitioner made an application before the
Magistrate that the opposite parties should be restrained from interfering with his possession of the land u/s 144, Cr. P.C. On 16-11-66 an ex
parte prohibitory order was passed. On 19-12-66 the learned Magistrate converted the proceeding u/s 144 into one u/s 145. Cr. P.C. The
criminal revision has been filed against the propriety, of this order.
The order of the learned Magistrate is indefensible. The matter is concluded by a series of decisions of this Court, one of which is reported in
Banamali Mohapatra Vs. Bajra Nahak and Others, . In a case of this nature, where recent delivery of possession has been effected through Civil
Court, it is the paramount duty of the Criminal Court to see that the possession of the successful party is maintained. If there is any apprehension of
breach of the peace, the unsuccessful party should be bound down u/s 107, Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate fell into a complete confusion of
thought as he did not keep himself in touch with the recent development in law and converted the proceeding u/s 144, Cr. P.C. into one u/s 145,
Cr. P.C. The proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P.C. is accordingly quashed and the learned Magistrate is directed to take action against the opposite
parties u/s 107. Cr. P.C. if there is still further apprehension of breach of the peace. The order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the
Criminal Revision is allowed.
On behalf of the petitioner an application for contempt was filed to take action against the Sub-Inspector of police who was the receiver. He got
the paddy harvested on 25-12-66 despite the matter having been brought to his notice that this Court had passed an order of stay. Mr. Pal
however, does not press this application. It is accordingly discharged.
There is no denying of the tact that the opposite parties are entitled to a share of the produce towards their costs of cultivation for the agricultural
year 1966-67 The petitioner is to work out his rights as to his share in appropriate forum.