M.H. Hussain, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as the opposite parties.
(2.) THE Magistrate has no explanation to offer in respect of his impugned order dated 19 -12 -1970. Proceedings Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure giving rise to this reference were initiated on the police report dated 22 -7 -1969. The Magistrate feeling satisfied about the existence of apprehension of breach of peace passed the preliminary order on 1 -8 -1969 directing the parties to appear before him and also for the attachment of the disputed plots. In pursuance of this preliminary order, on August 3, 1969 the plots in dispute were attached and were given in the supurdgi of a supurdar. The plots in dispute happen to be situated on the bank of a river which from time to time changes its course and the land sometimes fall within the district of Gorakhpur and sometimes within the district of Deoria. In view of this changing course of the river both the District Magistrates of Deoria and Gorakhpur made reference to the Board of Revenue for fixing the boundary of the two districts in the vicinity of the river Rapti. In view of this reference the proceedings Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure which were initiated by the parties in their respective districts of Deoria and Gorakhpur were stayed by the orders of the respective District Magistrates. Subsequent to this, the proceedings Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure pending in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Deoria again commenced and on 16 -5 -1970 Ram Kalap Singh moved an application for the dropping of the proceedings on the ground that the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Deoria had no jurisdiction in respect of the land which was situated in the Gorakhpur district. After a few months the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Deoria by his order dated 19 -12 -1970 decided to proceed with the case and accordingly passed the impugned order. Against this impugned order of the Magistrate Applicant Ram Kalap Singh went no in revision to the Sessions Judge, who after hearing the parties passed an order dated December 21, 1971 and made a reference to this Court for quashing the impugned order of the Magistrate dated December 19, 1970 and staying further proceedings in the case till the Board of Revenue had answered the reference made to it by the District Magistrate, Deoria.
(3.) SHRI U.S.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for opposite parties Brij Raj Yadav and others, has contended that the Assistant Record Officer Gorakhpur by his order dated 7 -9 -1971 has found that the disputed plots were situated in the district of Deoria and in view of this finding of the Record Officer the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Deoria has jurisdiction to proceed with the case. The contention of the learned Counsel is not tenable in view of the fact that the reference by the to District Magistrates of Deoria and Gorakhpur has been made to the Board of Revenue for fixing the boundary of the two districts on either side of the river. The disputed plots are already under attachment and in the supurdgi of a supurdar.;