Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mahammad Khan vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 3 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
C.R.R 4112 of 2022
Mahammad Khan
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner: Ms. Pampa Dey Dhabal, Adv.,
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Gupta, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv.,
Mrs. Ghazala Firdaus, Adv.,
Mrs. Smita Saha, Adv.,
Mr. Sk. Saidullah, Adv.,
Mr. Mithun Mondal, Adv.,
Mr. Md. Arsalan, Adv.
For the State: Mr. Md. Anwar Hossain, Adv.,
Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Begg, Adv.
Heard on: 03 January, 2023.
Judgment on: 03 January, 2023.
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : -
1.
Affidavit of service kept with the record.
2. An order dated 1st November, 2022 passed by the learned Executive
Magistrate, Arambagh, Hooghly in M.P Case No.1090 of 2022 under
Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is under challenge in the
instant revision.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of a piece of land
admeasuring 33 decimal out of 104 decimal of land situated in khatian
No.378, R.S and L.R & L.R dag No.937 of mouza -Borosal Beltala under
the police station Goghat, in the district of Hooghly by purchase. The
opposite party No.2 claiming to be the foster son of the husband of one
Ayesha Khatun erstwhile owner of the aforesaid plot of land has been
trying to obstruct the petitioner in his cultivation and enjoyment of the
said property on the strength of fictitious Record of Rights. The petitioner
therefore filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the
leaned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court which was registered as
Title Suit No.114 of 2019 against the opposite party No.2. In said suit
petitioner's prayer for temporary injunction was allowed by the learned
trial judge vide order dated 13th July, 2022 restraining the
defendants/opposite party No.2 and others from interfering with peaceful
possession of the petitioner over the aforesaid property or from
obstructing him in cultivation. Suppressing the order of the Civil Court,
the opposite party No.2 filed an application under Section 144(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as M.P Case No.1090 of
2022.
4. The Executive Magistrate without drawing up any proceeding
directed the police authority attached to Goghat Police Station to keep a
close vigil over the area to maintain law and order and also to see that
harvesting of the paddy by the petitioner on the disputed land and his
possession over the said land may not be disturbed by the opposite
party/petitioner herein.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the instant revision. It
appears from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), 1st Court at Arambagh that prima facie ownership and
possession of the petitioner was established in the Civil Court. The Civil
Court passed an order of injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiffs upon the suit
property or from obstructing in its cultivation by the plaintiffs or from
making any construction upon it till the disposal of the suit.
6. The learned Executive Magistrate without considering the order
passed by the Civil Court at the interim stage passed the impugned order
on 1st November, 2022.
7. The impugned order dated 1st November, 2022 being contrary to the
order of the Civil Court is liable to be set aside.
8. Accordingly the instant criminal revision is allowed on contest.
9. The impugned order dated 1st November, 2022 is set aside.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
