S.N.Katju, J. - (1.) In the present case the learned Magistrate made a reference to the civil court with regard to a dispute relating to plot no. 26/d measuring 20 bighas and plot no. 26/9 measuring 10 bighas of land. I he grove and the trees in the aforesaid plots had not been described in the report of the Station Officer nor were they mentioned by the learned Magistrate in his preliminary order attaching the aforesaid plots. He was unable to decide the dispute himself and he drew up a statement of the facts of the case and forwarded the record of the proceedings to the civil court for the decision of the Munsif. In the statement drawn by the learned Munsif the land in dispute remained without any proper description. It was however mentioned in the order of reference that plots nos. 26/8 and 26/9 measuring 20 bighas and 10 bighas respectively were part and parcel of plot no. 26/6 which was formerly Banjar land belonging to the Gram Samaj. According to the Khasra of 1319 F the area of plot no. 26/6 was shown as 160 bighas while in the khewat of 1371 F its area was given as 84 bighas. Both the parties before the learned Munsif contended that they were in cultivation of portions of plot no. 26/6 along with certain other persons. It was not at all made clear by either party whether he was in actual cultivation of the entire plot no. 26/8 or 26/9.
(2.) The learned Munsif recorded a finding to the effect that the applicant Kalwa was in possession of the land in dispute on the date of the preliminary order. As mentioned above it was not at all clear as to what was the land in dispute as shown in the preliminary order. The learned Magistrate in conformity with the aforesaid, order of the learned Munsif released the aforesaid' land in favour of Kalwa. Jahana and others preferred a revision before the court below. It expressed the following view relying on a decision of the Patna High Court in Shreedhar Thakur v. Kesha Sao, A.I.R. 1962 Patna, 468 (1). "The only details given in the proceeding, which was drawn up, were the khata numbers, plot numbers and the area in dispute. There was nothing to indicate the total area of any of the plots, nor was there anything to show that the whole or a portion of any of the plots numbers of which were given, was in dispute. Admittedly the parties were at issue as to the possession over only portions of some of the plots but there was nothing in the proceeding to indicate the direction in which the disputed portions in those plots lay. The boundary of none of the plots, or portions of the plots, was given." The court below held that in the reference made by the learned Magistrate the description of the land which was the subject of dispute was altogether vague. The reference to the Munsif should be held to be incompetent and illegal and the preliminary order of attachment, the order of reference and the entire proceedings after the reference should be struck off as being without jurisdiction. He has accordingly made a reference to this Court for setting aside the final order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nakur and directing him to call for a fresh report from the police and hear the parties. If "he felt satisfied that the apprehension of breach of peace continued and that action under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is necessary he should ascertain the disputed land and thereafter draw up proceedings giving sufficient details and description of the land in suit so as to enable any one to identify easily and then dispose it of in accordance with law"
(3.) Learned counsel for Kalwa referred to a Single Judge decision of this Court in B. N. Pandey v. U. P. State, 1963 ALJ 1101 . (2). The observations in the aforesaid case seem to suggest that once the Magistrate passes an order in conformity with the order passed by the civil court, the order cannot be challenged. It was observed that "Any order passed by the civil court is final in the sense that no one can challenge that finding in appeal or revision, though he can challenge it in a regular suit to be instituted before a competent court.";