Sita Devi vs State of Bihar and Another

P.K. Deb, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 27.10.95 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Piro in case no. 272/80 declaring the possession over the proceeding land in favour of opposite party no. 2. It appears that the petitioner''s husband had claimed the land on purchase from one Yasoda Kuer in the year 1979 and since after purchase, this proceeding has been initiated on the ground that his possession was being disturbed. Another proceeding was also taken by the petitioner before the Consolidation authority and ultimately, in the Consolidation proceeding order was passed in favour of the petitioner''s husband but on consideration of the oral evidence on record and the documents filed possession has been declared in favour of opposite party no. 2 who also claimed the land on purchase on the same panel. The order is revisable one u/s 397 Cr.P.C. but this petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that as per decision of this court as reported in 1984 BBCJ 316, the whole order of the executive court is without jurisdiction and nullity. I have gone through the ruling which was also submitted before the court below. In that ruling it has been stated that in a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. the Executive Magistrate should not totally ignore any finding made by the Consolidation authority in the proceeding under that Act. It is not there that such decision of the authority has been ignored but that has been considered as it reveals from the impugned order. As the ruling submitted has also been considered, I find that the order itself is not without jurisdiction. The scope of section 482 Cr.P.C. is very limited when the law provides the proper remedy before the higher court in respect of any order passed by the original court. But herein in the present case, I have already said that the impugned order is revisable but without going for revision, the petitioner has come up to this court for quashing the order on the ground that the order was passed without jurisdiction. I have already said that the order is not without jurisdiction and hence petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Hence the same is rejected as being not maintainable.