LAWS(RAJ)-1950-2-17

HIRALAL Vs. SHEONARAIN

Decided On February 17, 1950
HIRALAL Appellant
V/S
SHEONARAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revision petitions, one filed by Hiralal against Sheonarain and others and other filed by Narain against Hiralal and others. Both these petitions are connected and they are disposed of by this judgment, Narain and six others filed a complaint in the court of the District Magis-trate, Alwar, on 12th July 1948 that the complainants were dispossessed of 38 plots of land measuring 167 bighas situated in village Pala, Nizamat Alwar by the opposite party and that there was likelihood of the breach of the peace. The District Magistrate sent the complaint of Narain to the Magistrate, First Class, Alwar, for disposal on 13th July, 1948, who after holding an enquiry, made an order under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. that the complainants be put in possession of the disputed land except a few plots which were allowed to remain in the possession of the subtenants and over which the complai-nants were only allowed a constructive possession. The Sessions Judge in revision confirmed the order of the Magistrate. Hiralal and Narain both have now come in revision before this court. Narain wants that he should be allowed possession of the plots of land, over which possession was nor granted to him by the lower court. Hiralal and others have come with the prayer that they should not have been dispossessed and possession should again be restored to them of the lands, which were given away to Narain and others under the orders of the lower court. The learned advocate for Hiralal and others has argued. 1. that the District Magistrate did not take cognizance of the complaint and transferred the case to the court of the First Class Magistrate but under the provisions of sec. 192 Cr. P. C. it was not open to the District Magistrate to transfer the case to any other Magistrate of which he had not taken cognizance of. The Magistrate making an enquiry in this case, therefore, should be deemed to have had no jurisdiction and consequently the order of the Magistrate should be treated as a nullity.

(2.) That Peareylal, one of the opposite party, was in possession of four plots of land as a sub-tenant of Narain, and, therefore, he should not have been ordered to hand over the possession of these plots to Narain. The cases of a number of plots of land in possession of a number of persons have been lumped together into one case and it was, therefore not possible for the lower court to come to any definite findings regarding the possession of each individual plot of land. The proceedings of lower court should be set aside on the ground THAT it is not legal to join so many cases into one and to hold a single enquiry relating to them