CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1745 OF 2001 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- 1. BASUDEO CHAUBEY, SON OF LATE DEO RAJ CHAUBEY, 2. SHAMBHU CHAUBEY 3. YOGENDRA CHAUBEY @ YOGENDRANATH CHAUBEY, BOTH SONS OF BASUDEO CHAUBEY. 4. AKHILESH CHAUBEY @ AKHILESH KUMAR CHAUBEY, SON OF SHAMBHU CHAUBEY. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DALSAGAR, POLICE STATION BUXAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DISTRICT BUXAR. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SATYADEO CHAUBEY, SON OF LATE SHEO PRASAD CHAUBEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DALSAGAR, POLICE STATION BUXAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DISTRICT BUXAR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Prasoon sinha, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey,A.P.P. For Private O.P. : Mr. Nivesh Kumar, Adv. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. The petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 2.12.2000 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar in Cr. Revision No.131 of 1999. By the said order, the revision petition was dismissed. Revision petition was preferred by petitioners against the order dated 31.7.1999 passed by Shri Rajiv Chauhan, Executive Magistrate, Buxar in Case No.20(M) of 1996 declaring the possession of opposite party no.2 over the land in dispute in 2 a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of petition filed by opposite party opposite party no.2 dated 12.2.1996, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of land appertaining to Khata No.22, New Khata No.16, Plot No.218 was initiated. The petitioners had claimed that opposite party no.2 had transferred the land in question to the petitioners after accepting Rs.50,000/-. However, the sale deed was not executed. In the meanwhile, dispute arose between the parties and on the basis of petition filed by opposite party no.2, the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated. Subsequently, by order dated 13.7.1999, Shri Rajiv Chauhand, Executive Magistrate, Buxar declared the possession over the land in question in favour of opposite party no.2. 3. Aggrieved with the order dated 31.7.1999, the petitioners filed a revision petition, which was numbered as Cr. Revision No.131 of 1999, which stood rejected on 2nd December,2000. 4. Against the order of rejection of 3 revision petition as well as declaring possession over the land in question in favour of the opposite party no.2 by Shri Rajiv Chauhan, Executive Magistrate in Case No.20(M) of 1996, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. During pendency of this petition, opposite party no.2 died and as such his legal heir were substituted in his place. 5. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of substituted opposite parties submitted that during the pendency of the present petition, peaceful possession over the land has already been handed over to the petitioners and the substituted opposite party is not disputing regarding the possession over the land in question in view of the fact that compromise in between the parties had already been arrived. 6. Shri Prasoon Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that he has got no such instruction but he has submitted that the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate i.e. order dated 31.7.1999 was without jurisdiction due to the reason that prior to passing of the order, the Executive Magistrate, Shri Rajiv Chauhan was already 4 relieved on the basis of his transfer from Buxar to Kishanganj. On the sole ground of jurisdiction, Shri Sinha has prayed for quashing of the impugned order. 7. Keeping in view that fact statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of substituted opposite party that dispute has already been settled as well as in view of the fact mentioned in Annexure-2 i.e. Order No.25 of 1999-2000 dated 1.7.1999 whereby the learned Executive Magistrate was relieved with effect from 30.6.1999, it is considered necessary to set aside the order dated 31.7.1999. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 31.7.1999 passed in Case No.20(M) of 1996 as well as order dated 2nd December,2000 passed in Cr. Revision No.131 of 1999 are set aside and petition stands allowed. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 23.8.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.