Nawal Kishore Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.492 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District- ====================================================== 1.

Nawal Kishore Singh and Anr Son of Late Bhukhan Singh. 2.

Hari Mohan Singh, Son of Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, Both Resident of Village Fatehpur, P.S. and Dist.- Sheohar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar.

2.

Hari Sahay Singh, Son of Late Ramchandra Singh. 3.

Radhe Shyam Singh, son of Late Chandra Shekhar Singh. Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 resident of Village- Fatehpur, P.S. and Dist.- Sheohar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

After service of notices upon O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. Notices are validly served upon them and O.P. No. 3 has appeared through vakaltnama, but today upon repeated calls, no one appeared on behalf of O.P. No. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Cr. Revision has been filed against order dated 16.12.2016, passed by the S.D.M., Sheohar in Case No. 255 of 2011, dismissing the proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C., holding that there is no authoritative and sufficient basis for passing order under

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.492 of 2017 dt.17-04-2023 2/3 Section 147 of the Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute is under Khata No. 446, plot no. 2461, with area of 40ft in length and 8ft in width, which was filled-up with old soil and used as rasta.

Counsel submits that the surroundings of the said land in dispute has already been described vide order dated 16.12.2016. He submits that the petitioner the opposite parties are agnates and the land belongs to their ancestors. Counsel submits that in the year 1936, partition took place, in which the above said disputed land was left for ratsa, for both the parties. Counsel further submits that again in the year 1993, the dispute arouse, in which by consent of the said land was left as rasta. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not claiming title on the said land rather he is merely claiming his right to way, as in year 1936 and again in year 1960, it was agreed between the parties that the said land will be used as rasta by both the parties. Counsel submits the O.P. is claiming and raising a dispute by virtue of case no. 75/11-12, decided by B.L.D.R. Counsel submits that the decision of B.L.D.R. is barred by res-judicata due to the reason that this matter was subject of dispute earlier and resolved in the year 1936 and

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.492 of 2017 dt.17-04-2023 3/3 1960. He further submits that the Court of S.D.M. has decided, only on the basis of that the land belongs to raiyat land and the records of right namely Badri Thakur, has not been added as party. Counsel submits that the said alleged Badri Thakur, who alleged to be raiyat of the land, is not claiming this land and there is no dispute from his side. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if Badri Thakur had come forward, and started disturbing to anyone, matter should have been otherwise, but so far as, case of private respondent no. 2 and 3 are concerned, they have no locus-standi to raise dispute and raising the question that Badri Thakur is not added as party. In this view of the matter, let this Cr. Revision is allowed and the order dated 16.12.2016, passed by the S.D.M.

, Sheohar in Case No. 255 of 2011, is hereby set-aside. Both the parties and S.D.M. are directed to respect the decision of 1936 and 1960 into the matter and they are also directed to make way free for the use of all the persons. (Dr. Anshuman, J.)