ARJUNA PARIDA Vs. BHASKAR CHANDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND party members are the Petitioners against the order of the Sessions Judge ' passed in revision in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code '').

(2.) ON the basis of an application by the first party, .the Magistrate initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code on being satisfied that the pre -conditions for initiation were there. Pursuant to the notice issued by the learned Magistrate, the Petitioners who were the second party member appeared before the Magistrate and took the stand that the Assistant Commissioner Endowments appointed a trust board in the year 1973 of which one Kapila Nahak was the Managing Trustee. The said Managing Trustee took up management of the property and after him the Petitioners took over the charge as members of the Trust Board. Some of the Petitioners were labourers engaged by Petitioner No. 1 for cultivating the disputed land and thus the Petitioners are in possession of the land in question.

(3.) BOTH parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims of possession. The learned Magistrate after a thorough analysis of the evidence came to the conclusion that it was difficult to decide as to which party was in possession of the disputed land as Marfatdar on the date of the preliminary order. He, therefore, attached the disputed land under Section 146 of the Code and appointed the Revenue Inspector to be the receiver until orders of the competent Court determining the rights of the parties were received. The second party members challenged this order of the Magistrate in revision. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order reappraised the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that it was the Respondent (first party) who must be deemed to be in possession of the disputed land on the date of the preliminary order and on this finding, the Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Magistrate and declared the possession of the first party over the disputed land and restrained the second party members from making any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the first party over the subject -matter of the dispute. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge which is being impugned in the present writ petition since under the Code of Criminal Procedure a second revision at the instance of the second party members who were the Petitioners before the sessions Judge is not maintainable.