IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1352 of 2007 DHANANJAI SINGH S/o Janeshwar Singh, Sevait of Narwadeshwar Nath Shiv Temple R/o village Kaithi, P.S. Jamhore, Dist. Aurangabad. ----Petitioner/Second party Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ajai Kumar S/o Late Satendra Sharma 3. Lalita Kuer W/o Late Satendra Sharma Both R/o vill. and P.O. Sohasa, P.S. Mahendia, Dist. Aarwal, 4. Amala Devi W/o Ranjeet Singh R/o vill. And P.O. Jaipur, P.S. Mahendia, Dist. Aarwal, ---Opp.Parties/First party. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rewati Kant Raman, Advocate. For the Opp.Parties : Mr. Banwari Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 03. 04.08.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the opposite parties. Petitioner is the second party to the proceeding taken up under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟). He is aggrieved by order dated 12.09.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Daudnagar in case no. 168 of 2003. A dispute was raised with regard to possession of 14 bighas and 14 kathas of land situated within Jamhore police station. On the basis of a police report a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code was initiated which was subsequently converted into one under Section 145 of the Code. Parties filed their show causes and laid evidence. Both parties admit that the land belonged to one Choudhary Jugal Kishore Singh @ Bijali Singh. The first party to the proceeding is the maternal grand son of the 2 aforesaid Choudhary Jugal Kishore Singh @ Bijali Singh, whereas the second party (petitioner herein) claimed to be the brother of Choudhary Jugal Kishore Singh @ Bijali Singh. It appears that by reason of a deed executed sometimes in the year 2001 aforesaid Choudhary Jugal Kishore Singh @ Bijali Singh created a temple and the second party (brother of Choudhary Jugal Kishore Singh @ Bijali Singh) was made the Manager of the said temple. It further appears that few months thereafter aforesaid Choudhary Jugal Kishore Singh @ Bijali Singh executed a deed of cancellation which was duly registered. By this deed the previous document creating a temple and nominating the second party as Manager of the said temple was cancelled leading to a dispute between the parties. Learned Magistrate on a consideration of the materials on record found and held as under:- “ ……f}rh; i{k ds izFke xokg jkts”oj flag f}rh; i{k ds lxs pkpk gS budh xokgh ls ;g Hkh LFkkfir gksrk gS fd ;qxy fd”kksj flg }kjk izFke ckj ueZns”oj ukFk f”ko eafnj dks fd;s x;s nku i= esa os igpkudrkZ Hkh gS budk dguk gS fd lsok;r /kuat; flag dk bl tehu ij dCtk bl nku i= ds fnu ls LFkkfir gqvk tcfd Lo;a /kuat; flag us viuh xokgh es dgk gS fd fooknxzLr tehu ij mUgksus /kku dk Qly yxk;k Fkk jkts”oj flg ds xokgh ls bldh iqf’V ugh gksrh gSaA izFke nku i= eafnj ds uke ls& 11-12-01 dks gqvk Fkk ftl oDr fookfnr tehu es Qly yxk gqvk FkkA /kuat; flag dk ;g dguk gS fd ;g Qly muds }kjk eafnj ds uke ls nku i= gksus ds iqoZ yxk;k x;k Fkk fo”oluh; izrhr ugh gksrk gSA 3 f}rh; i{k ds xokg jkts”oj flg ,oa Lo;a /kuat; flg dh xokgh ls ;g irk pyrk gS fd Hkxoku ueZns”oj f”ko eafnj ds uke pkS/kjh ;qxy fd”kksj flg }kjk nku i= fy[ks tkus ds i”pkr ls gh mHk; i{kks es fookn mRiUu gqvk ftlds dkj.k pkS/kjh ;qxy flg ds vigj.k dk eqdnek Hkh ntZ gqvkA pkS/kjh ;qxy fd”kksj flg mQZ fotyh flg }kjk 12-11-01 dks ueZns”oj ukFk f”ko eafnj ds uke ls fookfnr tehu dk nku i= fy[kuk] mlds ckn mHk; i{kks ds ohp vusd vkijkf/kd eqdnek gksuk rFkk fnukad 03-05-02 dks voj fuca/kd inkf/kdkjh nkmnuxj ds le{k ;qxy fd”kksj flg }kjk ueZns”oj ukFk f”ko eafnj dks fd;s x;s lksyg nku i= ds dSaflyukek dk MhM gksuk vkSj fnukad 21- 05-02 dks muds }kjk viuh iqf=;ks dks ikoj vkWQ vVuhZ iznku fd;s tkuk ;s lHkh ?kVuk pdz ikp eghus ds vanj gh gq;s gSA ftlls ;g irk pyrk gS fd izFke i{k dk dCtk fooknxzLr Hkqfe ij cuk gh jgkA izFke i{k dk xokg vkSj izfr ijh{k.k ls Hkh fooknxzLr Hkqfe ij bl okn dh dkjZokgh izkjaHk gksus ds iqoZ izFke i{k ds okLrfod dCtk dk irk pyrk gSA……” Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any patent illegality and/or infirmity in the order meriting interference by this Court. The application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. This Court only observes that any finding with regard to the title of the land in dispute shall not prejudice either party in the suit which may be levied by the party. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)