- (1.) THE petitioner who was the 1st party -petitioner in the Court below has preferred this Cr. Revision against the final order passed in proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC by the Executive Magistrate, Ranchi in M. Case No. 891 of 1995 by order dated 8.9.1997, declaring the possession of the members of the second party who are opposite parties in the present application.
(2.) A proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC was initiated on the basis of a police report which was subsequently converted into a proceeding under Section 145, Cr PC on 13.9.1995 with regard to dispute regarding possession over plot No. 5178 of Khata No. 197, area 2.48 acres out of total area of 4.95 acres situated in village Khukhra within Bero Police Station in the District of Ranchi. There is no dispute between the parties that the land in question originally stood in the name of the recorded tenant Birsa Bhogta. The case of the 1st party petitioner is that Birsa Bhogta surrendered the land in the possession to the landlord by registered deed of surrender dated 11.9.1941. The landlord by a registered deed of settlement, settled the lands so surrendered by Birsa Bhogta to Mahadeo Singh, by a registered deed of surrender dated 19.6.1962. Mahadeo Singh in his turn sold the land so settled with him to Seikh Sahju by the registered deed of sale dated 14.6.1969. The further case of the 1st party -petitioner is that jamabandi was created in the name of Seikh Sahju and after his death, his son Seikh Paltu inherited the same and he paid rent also. The 1st party -petitioner is claiming right, title, interest and possession over the lands under proceeding by virtue of purchase by two registered deed of sales dated 23.2.1981 and 5.1.1982 each sale deed of 1.24 acres from Seikh Paltu. Petitioner says that after his name was mutated, he was regularly paying rent for the same.
(3.) THE case of the 2nd party -opposite parties in brief is that the disputed land which is part and parcel of R.S. Khata No. 157 was recorded in the name of Birsa Bhogta who was the grandfather of the 2nd party -opposite parties. Birsa Bhogta remained in possession so along alive and after his death, the members of the 2nd party - opposite parties came in possession by virtue of being heirs of the recorded tenant and they were continuing in continuous possession of the same. Like previous years, they cultivated the land in question. The 2nd party - opposite parties further stated that the first party -petitioner has no manner of concern over the lands under proceeding. Birsa Bhogta never surrendered the land to the landlord and if there is any document of surrender that is forged and fabricated and the first party is trying to dispossess the members of the 2nd party -opposite parties from the lands under proceeding on the basis of forged and fabricated documents.;