JAHANA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE THROUGH KALWA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(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 Vs. Kesha Sao, A.I.R. 1962 Patna, 468 (1).

(3.) Learned counsel for Kalwa referred to a Single Judge decision of this Court in B. N. Pandey Vs. 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