Manmohan Dass vs Babu Lall and others

Adami, J.—The petitioner seeks in this application to have the order of the District Magistrate of Monghyr discharging the opposite party from the necessity to execute bonds under Sec. 107, Cr. P. Code, set aside.

It appears that, the Zamindar of Ulao demanded enhanced rents from the tenants of village of Rani Shankarpura and, on their refusal to pay, instituted suits for enhancement, and this caused great discontent among the villagers, who determined to resist. They decided to refuse payment of rent to the landlord and to boycott his amla and servants; great, friction arose and there were acts, and threats of violence which eventually led to an order being passed against the tenants, the five leaders of the opposite party, under Sec. 107, Cr. P. Code, binding them down to keep the peace.

The Opposite party then made an application to the District Magistrate to consider the case under Sec. 125 and cancel the bonds.

On the 25th October 1921, the District Magistrate passed the order:

"Admit appeal, send for record. Notice other party. As I shall be out on tour almost continuously for the next few months, I must hear appeal in Camp. Beguserai will suit both parties. I will hear it on 11th November."

The District Magistrate accordingly started hearing the case on November 11th but camp to the conclusion that it would be better if the parties came to terms, and gave time for this purpose. On January 12th he noted that the parties agreed to an enhancement of 3 annas 3 pies in the rupee instead of the admissible enhancement 5 annas in the rupee. He then settled that time should be given for the deposit of rents by the tenants.

On the 6th of March he recorded that the parties had more or less settled their dispute and that 232 tenants had agreed to the figures of the rent settled and some 80 others were likely to settle their differences with the landlord. It was also agreed to settle the rent suits. On the 21st March, after distribution of the rent receipts, the District Magistrate noted that though the five present petitioners had not settled their dispute direct with the landlord, there was no sufficient reason for postponing the disposal of the case. He remarked that the landlord bad been almost as much to blame for the trouble as the tenants and then he wrote in the order sheet.

"I do not consider that after the present settlement there is any danger of a breach of the peace. I accordingly allow the appeal and discharge, the appellants from the necessity of giving security for their future behaviour, setting aside the order of the lower Court.

A patwari of the landlord has moved this Court against the said order. Mr. Gour Chandra Pal, on his behalf, argues that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order in proceedings under Sec. 107, and that the only order he could pass under Sec. 125 was an order cancelling the bond. He relies on the decision in Daya Nath Thakur Vs. Emperor and on a judgment of mine in the case of Durga Singh v. Amar Dayal Singh AIR 1922 Pat 834.

There is no doubt as to the correctness of the contention that no right of appeal lies against an order under Sect. 107, and that the order to be passed under Sec. 125 is an order cancelling the bond. In the present case we find however that there was no appeal by the opposite party, in their petition they asked the Magistrate to consider their case under Sec. 125, to set aside the order of the Court below and direct cancellation of the bonds. It is true that the Magistrate in the order sheet described the petition as an appeal and proceeded to hear the parties, but he subsequently took purely executive action in bringing about a settlement between the landlord and tenants, and in his final order, though he states that he allowed the appeal, he also stated that in his opinion there was no real danger of a breach of the peace and discharged the petitioners from the necessity of giving security, and this was equivalent to a cancellation of the bonds. The case of Durga Singh v. Amar Dayal Singh AIR 1922 Pat 834 mentioned above, was of a very different nature. There the Deputy Commissioner discussed the property and validity of the Deputy Magistrate''s procedure and came to a finding that the proceedings were void as being without Jurisdiction. He said nothing about cancellation of the bonds or discharge of the men bound down for their security.

I can find no reason to hold that in the present case the District Magistrate acted without jurisdiction. He took executive action for the settlement of the dispute and then came to a finding that there was no real danger of a breach of the peace and directed the opposite party to be discharged from their security, which meant cancellation of the bonds. That the District Magistrate wrongly described the proceedings as an appeal makes no difference.

It is complained that the petitioner was not given a hearing before the order was passed; the order sheet shows that notice was issued to the landlord''s party and that throughout the landlord was represented. Furthermore the petitioner cannot contend that the proceeding before the District Magistrate was an appeal, and at the same time demand that he should have the rights of a respondent to an appeal.

It is lastly argued that though other tenants settled their dispute the five members of the opposite party did not do so. The finding of the District Magistrate that there was no further danger of a breach of the peace was sufficient for an order for cancellation of the bonds.

I can see no good reason to interfere; the application is rejected.