Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) THE second party of a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") has preferred this revision against the judgment dated 13th March, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge -VI, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the order dated 3.12.2012/10.12.2012 passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate (in short "the S.D.M."), Ramgarh directing the second party -petitioners to execute bond of Rs. 5,000/ - each with two sureties of like amount each for keeping peace for a period of one year as provided under Section 117 of the Code, has been affirmed. On a report submitted by the Officer -in -charge of Rajrappa Police Station, the said S.D.M., Ramgarh apprehending the breach of peace between the above two parties with regard to their possession over an area of 7.21 and 1/2 acre of land of Khata No. 15, initiated the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code and directed both the parties to file their respective show causes. Whereafter, both the parties filed their show -causes in the court below claiming their respective possession over the land in dispute.
(2.) IT appears from the record that the dispute with regard to the title of the parties over the above land was earlier decided by a competent Civil Court in favour of present opposite party No. 3 -Kanhai Mahto, the first party in the court below. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Judgment Debtor preferred an appeal before the District Judge but the same was also dismissed and subsequently the second appeal filed by the same judgment debtor before the Hon'ble High Court in S.A. No. 203 of 2003 and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were also dismissed. In the said suit and appeals, Gaji Mahto, the father of the present petitioner No. 3 Menka Mahto, was a party. From the show cause filed by the first party in the court below, it appears that the land of Khata No. 15 was recorded in the Khatiyan in the name of Nandlal Mahato, who had purchased the land in auction in the Benami name of his brother -in -law Ram Singh but Nand Lal Mahato being the real owner came in possession and continued in possession of the said land. In the year 1946, the said Nand Lal Mahato sold 7.21 and 1/2 acres of land to Radha Nath Mahto and Mosammat Valko by registered sale deed. Later on Mosammat Valko sold half of the above land to her son -in -law Mohan Mahto and Radha Nath Mahto and another half of the land in the joint names of Rameshwar Mahto, Kanhai Mahto the first party of the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code, Manhai Mahato and Kailash Mahato by registered sale deed dated 25.9.1981 and put them in possession of the land. Accordingly, the names of the purchasers were mutated: In the year 1984, the suit was filed in the Court of Sub -Judge -IV, Hazaribagh bearing Title Suit No. 50 of 1984 in which, Gaji Mahato, the father of present petitioner No. 3 Menka Mahato, was also a party. The said Gaji Mahto in his written statement filed in the court clearly plead that he has no claim or any connection with the land in question and during evidence in court also, he confirmed his statement that he has no connection with the land in dispute. As stated above, the matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and at every stage, it was decided in favour of the present opposite party No. 3 Kanhai Mahato.
(3.) THE case of the second party as pleaded in the show -cause was that their ancestor Ram Singh had purchased the said land in a Certificate Case and since after the purchase, they had been coming in possession of the land in question and after the death of Ram Singh, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have been coming in possession.;