Judgment:
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. This Revision application is directed against the order dated 28.08.1998, passed in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1994 by the VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the operative part of the order dated 18.12.1993 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Ranchi in a proceeding under Section 145(4), Cr. P.C. vide Case No. M 427 of 1987 in favour of the petitioner, was set aside.
2. The main ground in support of the prayer, as advanced by the petitioner, is that the impugned order of the Revisional court is bad on the points of facts as also on the points of law and that the Revisional court could not have left the case merely by setting aside the order of the enquiring Magistrate without recording a finding on its own on the dispute regarding factum of possession between the parties over the disputed lands or remanding the case back to the enquiring Magistrate for recording a proper finding on the issue. For better appreciation of the grounds, reference to the facts of the case in brief may be necessary.
3. The case before the learned Executive Magistrate was initiated on the basis of an application made by the Respondent No. 1, who was the First Party in the proceeding. The present petitioner was one of the members of the second party. The dispute between the parties was in respect of title and possession over two different pieces of lands in R.S. Plot No. 1361, Khata No. 128, situated within the village Hed Konki, in the Kanke Police Station, District-Ranchi. After conducting the enquiry, the learned Enquiring Magistrate vide his order dated 18.12.1993 had declared possession of the present petitioners over the disputed lands under Section 145(4), Cr. P.C. Against the above order, the Opposite Party, namely, the First Party in the proceeding, preferred Revision application before the Sessions Court and by the order impugned in this Revision application dated 28.08.1998, the learned Sessions Judge, allowed the Revision application, setting aside the finding of the learned Enquiring Magistrate by which the possession of the petitioners over the disputed lands was declared in their favour.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.
Assailing the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed grave error in failing to consider the evidences on record and has passed the impugned order by merely reading the concluding portion of the order of the Enquiring Magistrate. Learned Counsel expressed further that the Revisional court was under a legal obligation to consider the evidences on record before arriving at any conclusion regarding the propriety of the order the Enquiring Magistrate. Learned Counsel submits further that the Revisional court was otherwise obliged to record its own findings on the issue regarding factum of possession, which, the Revisional court has failed to do, leaving thereby the dispute between the parties unresolved.
5. From perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found fault with the finding of the Enquiring Magistrate and has criticized the same on the ground that the Enquiring Magistrate has usurped the jurisdiction of the civil court in deciding the title and possession. Apparently, on the aforesaid sole ground, the Revision application filed by the Opposite Party was allowed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has neither adverted to the evidence on record, nor has recorded its own finding on the dispute subsisting between the parties regarding the possession. It also appears that though, by the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the operative portion of the order of the learned Enquiring Magistrate, but he has not passed any further order for the purposes of deciding the original dispute between the parties. In absence of recording a finding on its own, on the dispute between the parties over possession of the disputed lands, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have remanded the case back to the Enquiring Magistrate to record a finding afresh on the relevant issue on the basis of evidences on record.
7. For the reasons discussed above, I find that the impugned order of the learned Revisional court suffers from impropriety and is not sustainable. Accordingly, this Revision application is allowed. The impugned order 28.08.1998 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1994, is hereby set aside.