Sk. Hira vs State of Jharkhand

Mr. Ananda Sen, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

It appears that the Police initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of a complaint lodged by the opposite parties, which was later on converted under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Seraikella. The said proceeding was transferred to the Court of the Executive Magistrate, Seraikella. The learned Executive Magistrate vide its order dated 21.06.2011, decided the matter and has held that the opposite parties are in possession over the land in question.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2011, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Seraikella in Misc. Case No. 244 of 2003, the petitioners had preferred a criminal revision bearing Cr. Revision No. 35 of 2011. The learned Revisional Court (Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Seraikella-Kharsawan), after taking into consideration the documents available on the records and the argument advanced, has upheld the order of the Executive Magistrate, passed in Misc. Case No. 244/2003, holding that the opposite parties are in possession of the land in question.

Challenging the said order of the Revisional Court dated 11/12/2015, the petitioners have preferred this instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Court below has failed to take into consideration the Municipal Survey Khatian and has passed the impugned order. He further submits that if the said Khatian would have been taken into consideration, the Court below would not have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties are in possession of the land in question.

Be that as it may, both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding that the opposite parties are in possession of the land in question. In a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no title can be declared. If the petitioners are aggrieved of any finding, arrived at by both the Courts below, they need to file an appropriate Suit under the C.P.C., for declaration of their right, title and possession/or recovery of possession over the land in question. This Court, in an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot decide the possession of the petitioners over the land in question, which has already been decide by both the Courts below after proper inquiry.

In that view, I do not find any merit in this application and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.