Chaudhri Risal Singh Vs. Baljit Singh and ors.

Chaudhri Risal Singh vs Baljit Singh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 10, 1929

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/485425

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/485425
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Dalal, J.
Decided On: Apr 10, 1929
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 139-A - Proceedings under Section 183--Power of Magistrate to direct particular party to take proceedings in Civil Court, and to dismiss application if no steps arc taken within certain time. - - The finding of the Magistrate is 'Taking all the facts in view, it see...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chaudhri Risal Singh

Respondent

Baljit Singh and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 126Ind.Cas.352

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 139-a - proceedings under section 183--power of magistrate to direct particular party to take proceedings in civil court, and to dismiss application if no steps arc taken within certain time. - - the finding of the magistrate is 'taking all the facts in view, it seems to me that there is reliable evidence in support of the denial of the defendants that, for some considerable time past, there has been no existence of any public right of way as claimed by the complainant......has to stay proceedings, and obviously the proceedings are not meant to be stayed indefinitely. there should be some period of the stay, and the magistrate ought to have the power of dismissing the application on the right not being decided by a civil court on motion by a particular party within a certain time. in the present case the question of the authority of the magistrate to direct a party to take proceedings in the civil court has not been questioned by mr. nehal chand, and argument was addressed to me only on the particular facts of the present case as to whether risal singh or baljit singh should, he directed to take proceedings in the civil court. i think that this is the right view taken of the law by mr. nihal chand and of the deduction that is to be made both from statute-law and from cases decided by this court.2. coming to the, particular facts of this case, risal singh desired that there should be a public road over a particular area of land which is claimed by baljit singh as his own. the finding of the magistrate is 'taking all the facts in view, it seems to me that there is reliable evidence in support of the denial of the defendants that, for some considerable time past, there has been no existence of any public right of way as claimed by the complainant.' the present decision, therefore, is in favour of the defendant, and if no action were taken the result would be that the complainant's application would be dismissed. under the circumstances i direct that risal singh shall prove the existence of a public right of way over the land in dispute within one year of to-day's date, in default of which the magistrate will be at liberty to dismiss his application.

Full Judgment

Dalal, J.

1. As I have previously remarked in several judgments Chap. X of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not revised with care in 1923 when additions were made to it in accordance with certain rulings of certain High Courts. In Section 139-A it is not stated who is to have the matter of the existence of a right decided by a competent Civil Court and what order the Magistrate has to pass in order to reach an end to the criminal litigation. Under Clause (2) of that section the Magistrate has to stay proceedings, and obviously the proceedings are not meant to be stayed indefinitely. There should be some period of the stay, and the Magistrate ought to have the power of dismissing the application on the right not being decided by a Civil Court on motion by a particular party within a certain time. In the present case the question of the authority of the Magistrate to direct a party to take proceedings in the Civil Court has not been questioned by Mr. Nehal Chand, and argument was addressed to me only on the particular facts of the present case as to whether Risal Singh or Baljit Singh should, he directed to take proceedings in the Civil Court. I think that this is the right view taken of the law by Mr. Nihal Chand and of the deduction that is to be made both from statute-law and from cases decided by this Court.

2. Coming to the, particular facts of this case, Risal Singh desired that there should be a public road over a particular area of land which is claimed by Baljit Singh as his own. The finding of the Magistrate is 'Taking all the facts in view, it seems to me that there is reliable evidence in support of the denial of the defendants that, for some considerable time past, there has been no existence of any public right of way as claimed by the complainant.' The present decision, therefore, is in favour of the defendant, and if no action were taken the result would be that the complainant's application would be dismissed. Under the circumstances I direct that Risal Singh shall prove the existence of a public right of way over the land in dispute within one year of to-day's date, in default of which the Magistrate will be at liberty to dismiss his application.

Same Parties Chaudhri Risal Singh vs Baljit Singh and ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Dalal, J.

Land Acquisition