S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings including the order dated 23rd February, 2000 passed by the learned Sub -divisional Magistrate, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur in Misc. Petition No. 65 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, certain observation was made relating to possession of Opposite Party No. 2 over the land in question. It was further observed that the petitioner has right to dispossess the said Opposite Party No. 2 from the land in question and thereby directed the Officer -in -Charge, Sakchi Police Station to give appropriate protection to the Opposite Party No. 2
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the aforesaid order is against the order passed by a competent Court of law in Title Suit No. 692 of 1963 against one K.P. Mishra, who was the father of Opposite Party No. 2 wherein the case was decreed in favour of petitioner on 10th March, 1975 in respect to land in question. The dispute relates to land measuring 0.0310 Hectors having R.S. Plot No 2244 and Khata No. 245 corresponding to old Plot No 2573 and Khata No. 218 within P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur and District -East Singhbhum. According to Opposite party No. 3, the land, in question belongs to the Opposite party No. 2 who is the landlord. It is recorded as Anabad (Bihar Sarkar). On the other hand, according to the petitioner, the land belongs to TISCO which was under the occupation of father of Opposite party No. 2 i.e. one K.P. Mishra. As he did not vacate the land in question, the petitioner had to file Execution Case No. 60/1990 for obtaining delivery of possession by evicting the father of Opposite party No. 2. Pursuant to decree passed in Title Suit No. 692 of 1963. During the pendency of the said execution case, said K.P. Mishra died and after his death the mother of Opposite Party No. 2 and his brother were substituted in place of deceased K.P. Mishra in the said execution proceeding. In the said case, an order of delivery of possession was issued in favour of petitioner by the learned executing Court and the petitioner took possession of the land and delivery of possession of the said land was effected by the Nazir of the executive Court on 23rd January, 1999 in favour of the petitioner. But the aforesaid submission of Opposite Party No. 2 was disputed by the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 3. According to him, the record relating to delivery of possession relates to some other land and not the land in question.
(3.) FROM the impugned order dated 23rd February, 2000 passed by the learned Sub -divisional Magistrate, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur in Misc. Petition No. 65 of 1999, it appears that proceeding under Section 144 Cr PC was initiated at the instance of Opposite party No. 2 with regard to the land in question. In the said case, the Opposite Party No. 2 alleged that the petitioner TISCO was trying to evict him and so as to disturb his possession. In the said case, an order of status quo was initially passed and the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur and thereafter the Deputy Collector, Tata Lease, Jamshedpur were directed to submit report but such report having not submitted, the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur proceeded on the basis of the record. Giving reference to one letter issued from the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar vide letter No. 15/Kha East Singhbhum 15/99 -1343 RA dated 9th August, 1999, it was opined by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur that the Opposite Party No. 2 is in possession. That is the reason the petitioner TISCO while claiming the possession of such land has challenged such finding, whereby it has been observed that the Opposite Party No. 2 is in possession over the land, in question.;