Skip to content


Radhashyam Patri and ors. Vs. Ranka Rangadhar Panda - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Ref. No. 47 of 1961
Judge
Reported inAIR1962Ori161
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 145
AppellantRadhashyam Patri and ors.
RespondentRanka Rangadhar Panda
Appellant AdvocateRaghunath Das, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateRamchandra Misra, Adv.
DispositionReference accepted
Excerpt:
.....smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - they might legitimately complain that if separate proceedings had been started they would have filed affidavits of witnesses in support of their respective claims and separate findings might have been given in respect of specific plots of land......on the ground that a separate proceeding should be started in respect of each parcel of land claimed by each of them. but the learned magistrate started only one proceeding including therein all the disputed lands. the learned sessions judge has observed that, in reality, there were several disputes in this case and that the magistrate ought to have started a separate proceeding in respect of each of them. 3. the question, of jurisdiction is not material now, but the main question is whether prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by starting one proceeding in respect of all the plots. distinct parcels of land were claimed by them to be in their possession. they might legitimately complain that if separate proceedings had been started they would have filed affidavits of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R.L. Narasimham, C.J.

1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Balasore recommending the quashing of a final order in a proceeding under Section 145 Cri. P. C. between, the parties, suggesting that separate proceedings may be started. The land in dispute consists of Ac. 2.28 decimals, under separate khatas and bearing separate plot numbers. In respect of some of them the opposite party who was the first party claimed to be the purchaser from a previous owner namely one Pritam Dibya. In respect of the rest he admitted that he sold the lands to two other person named Maguni Tarai and Gangadhar Majhi, but claimed to be their bhag tenants. The petitioners' case however was that they were bhag tenants in respect of separate parceis of the disputed property and that they were in possession all along for a very long time.

2. It appears that when the proceedings were started an objection was raised by the petitioners on the ground that a separate proceeding should be started in respect of each parcel of land claimed by each of them. But the learned Magistrate started only one proceeding including therein all the disputed lands. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that, in reality, there were several disputes in this case and that the magistrate ought to have started a separate proceeding in respect of each of them.

3. The question, of jurisdiction is not material now, but the main question is whether prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by starting one proceeding in respect of all the plots. Distinct parcels of land were claimed by them to be in their possession. They might legitimately complain that if separate proceedings had been started they would have filed affidavits of witnesses in support of their respective claims and separate findings might have been given in respect of specific plots of land. By starting One proceeding and examining the affidavits of the second party in a general way the learned Magistrate has not examined the evidence of possession adduced by the second party, in a proper manner. Moreover the first party himself admitted that in respect of Some portions of the property he himself was a bhag tenant of Maguni and Gangadhar.

4. It thus appears that there are several disputes and the hearing of all of them in one proceeding must necessarily cause prejudice, especially as regards leading of evidence on the question of possession.

5. I would therefore accept the reference and set, aside the final order passed by the learned Magistrate. If there is further apprehension of breach of peace, it will be open to him to start separate proceedings in respect of distinct parcels of land in dispute and then dispose of the same according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //