Patna High CourtCR. REV./662/2014dismissed

Sachchidanand Singh And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-12-21Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.662 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SEKHPURA ===========================================================

1. Sachchidanand Singh

2. Brijnandan Singh

3. Nawal Kishore Singh @ Nawal Kishore Prasad All are sons of Late Hargovind Singh resident of village - Jagdishpur Korma, Police Station - Korma, District - Sheikhpura .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Deonandan Singh S/o Late Hargovind Singh resident of village - Jagdishpur Korma, Police Station - Korma, District - Sheikhpura

3. Ranjit Singh

4. Randhir Singh Both sons of Ram Nath Singh

5. Arvind Kumar son of Abhimanyu Singh

6. Mukesh Kumar son of Balmiki Singh All are resident of village - Korma - Jagdishpur, P.S. Korma, District - Sheikhpura .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-12-2016 The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 19.04.2014 passed in Case No. 588-M of 2001 by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate, Sheikhpura in a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby he has concluded that the disputed land could not be declared to be in possession of either of the parties. He has also held that the disputed land is of the nature Ghair Mazarua Malik.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.662 of 2014 dt.21-12-2016 2/2

2. The disputed land has been described as Khata No. 230 Plot no. 1325 area 41 3⁄4 decimal in Mouza Jagdishpur.

3. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. However, it is observed that the findings recorded by the Sub-divisional Officer shall not prejudice the case of either of the parties on the question of their possession and title if the same is raised before the court of competent jurisdiction.

4. This revision application is dismissed with the observation aforesaid.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Amin/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date