IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.33 of 2002 JULUM SAH @ JULUM SAH GOND Versus SITARAM RAM & ORS With CR. REV. No.37 of 2002 FULENA THAKUR & ORS Versus OSIYAR MUSSHAR & ORS With CR. REV. No.38 of 2002 CHANDRIKA MUSAHAR & ORS Versus SAMIR MUSAHAR & ORS ------------- 7 24.03.2009 All the three revision applications are taken up together as the issues pleas raised are almost similar. One Julum Sah @ Julum Sah Gond is petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2002, whereas Fulena Thakur and Sheopujan Thakur are petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2002 and Chandrika Musahar is petitioner in Revision No. 38 of 2002. As the case of Julum Sah @ Julum Sah Gond is first in the order, I am taking up this as the lead case and order passed in this case would also be applicable in case of the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2002 and 38 of 2002. The petitioners state that the land in dispute was recorded in survey records as Gairmajarua Mallik Parti Kadim and it was under the Jamindari of Ex-landlords. The landlords had allowed the petitioners to cultivate the land and in lieu of the service rendered by them the landlord did not insist for rent. A Special Revenue proceeding was launched in the year 1970. Encroachment proceedings were started against petitioners. - 2 - However, the State Government settled the land with the petitioners in the year 1979 and were asked to pay revenue accordingly w.e.f. the year 1955, which were duly paid. The petitioner continued in peaceful possession of the land for more than 12 years, and acquired occupancy right over the land in the year 2000. They began growing crops. All of sudden in the year 2001, the Circle Officer, Bagaha made certain marking on the land. Subsequently, it transpired to the petitioners that behind their back, a cancellation proceeding was initiated vide Case No. 128 of 1997/98, by the then Revenue Minister for cancelling the settlement. The land in question was settled with the Opposite Parties. The petitioners assert that settlement was only on papers and the petitioners continued in possession. The petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 121323, 12479, 12533/01 for quashing the aforesaid proceedings. This court ordered to maintain status quo with respect to land in question. A copy of order dated 5.10.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 121323 of 2001 has been annexed as Annexure 1. Similar orders have been passed in other writ applications. During the operation of status quo ordered by this court, the Executive Magistrate directed the crops standing on land in question to be harvested through State Agency. It thus appears that though there was a status quo order passed in different writ application in respect of land, still the Magistrate ordered that the crops in question be harvested by State Agency which would be in - 3 - violation of order of this court. I fully agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 28.10.2001, passed by Executive Magistrate, directing that the crops be harvested by Circle Officer, is in teeth of status quo order passed by this court in various writ applications, and as such the same is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. It has been brought to my notice that though the writ applications have been dismissed, L.P.As vide L.P.A. Nos. 1140 of 2004, 1150 of 2004 and 1143 of 2004 are pending and stay order has been passed in all those cases and it has been observed that any order passed by the authorities will be subject to the result of L.P.As pending in this court. Accordingly, this application along with Criminal Revision No. 37 and 38 of 2002 are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)