Lakshman Uraon, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Ajay Kumar Tirkey, who was 1st party in the Court below, has preferred this criminal revision application against the order dated 18 -11 -1995, passed by Sri D.C. Mishra, Executive Magistrate, Ranchi, in M. Case No. 508 of 1989 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby and whereunder, the possession of the 2nd party (Opp. Party No. 2) was declared in respect of the disputed land, measuring 0.65 Acres of Plot No. 162, appertaining to Khata No. 39, situated at Hindpirhi, Ranchi. By the said order, the petitioner was restrained to go over the said land till an order is passed by any competent authority in his favour.
(2.) THE ancestors of Opp. Party No. 2, namely, Martin Tirkey (2nd party) were the recorded raiyats of the said land. The petitioner (1st party) claims that the disputed land was purchased by his father Bimal Tirkey through a registered sale deed dated 23 -9 -1939 and since then he was in possession and after the death of his father, the petitioner, namely, Ajay Kumar Tirkey (1st party) came in possession of the same and paid rent and got rent receipts in lieu thereof. When Opp. party No. 2 was burying the dead animals in that plot, which was objected to by the petitioner, an altercation took place and on the information of the 1st party, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr. P.C.') was started, which was ultimately converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in M. Case No. 508 of 1989. Petitioner Ajay Kumar Tirkdey (1st party) claimed that the land was purchased through registered sale deed from the father and uncle of Martin Tirkey (Opp. party No. 2), namely, Luthar Tirkey and Suleman Tirkey, by his father, namely, Bimal Kumar Tirkey. The vendor and the vendees both have died. The 1st party claimed that after purchase, his name was mutated and, accordingly, he paid rent. The petitioner was an employee of the H.E.C. and on 8 -2 -1989 he found the 2nd party burying a dead cow in his land. It is further submitted that for forceful possession of the land, the 2nd party instituted a case under Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act virtually admitted the possession of the 1st party.
(3.) THE 2nd party in his show cause has stated that only to grab his ancestral land, the petitioner Ajay Kumar Tirkey has brought a case under Section 144/145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that filing of a case under Section 71 -A of the C.N.T. Act is not an estoppel against him, as it was done inadvertently, R.S. Khata No. 39 is the ancestral property of Opp. Party No. 2 (2nd party), duly recorded in the name of Luthar Oraon and Suleman Oraon. He has denied any transfer of the disputed land in favour of Bimal Kumar Tirkey, father of the petitioner Ajay Kumar Tirkey.;