High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chhakku Lal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 530 of 2006  RD-AH 1378 (19 January 2006)
Court No. 19.
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 530 of 2006
Jamir Hasan Vs. State of U.
Heard and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.2.2005 passed by the respondent No.2/ Pargana Magistrate, Nagina, district Bijnor (annexure-8) as also an order dated 23.11.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, district Bijnor (annexure-10). Further direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to maintain status quo has also been sought.
The learned S.D.M., after scanning all the evidence on record found that the first party (petitioner) could not prove its case while the other party (respondent) proved its possession and therefore it recalled preliminary order dated 23.6.2004 and directed the S.O. concerned to take the possession of land in question from the petitioner and to handover to the respondent. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge. It was contended before the revisional court that they have inherited the land in question beings sons of deceased Budhu. On the other hand it was maintained that the opposite parties are in possession of the land in question for the reason that its one part was sold by deceased Budhu while rest of the land was inherited by them by will. It was further contended on behalf of the revisionist/petitioner that a civil suit in respect of sale deed in question is pending in the court of Civil Judge ( Junior Division) Nagina and hence the matter is subjudice. Similarly the will in question on the basis of which remaining part of the land is claimed to be in the possession of opposite parties has also been challenged in the court of Consolidation Officer. The learned Sessions Judge found that the revisionist claimed himself to be owner in possession one third share of the land but there was no such documentary evidence to show that the land in question was ever partitioned. The revisional court was not supposed to enter into the merits of ownership. However, it did not find any illegality or material irregularity or anything otherwise in respect of jurisdiction and hence it refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned S.D.M.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the memo of revision (page 54) argued that the learned Sessions Judge did not apply his mind and did not consider some of the grounds mentioned in the memo of revision.
I have gone through aforesaid memo of revision wherein some of the grounds pertain to facts which normally the revisional court was not supposed to deal with. It was only required to look into the correctness, legality and propriety of the finding and those points have been properly looked into. Neither any illegality nor any material irregularity was found in the order in question. Nothing was also found otherwise in respect of exceeding jurisdiction or not exercising jurisdiction vested in it. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and Sessions Judge under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is parallel and equivalent and the matter in question has already been look into by the court of Sessions. The writ jurisdiction is discretionary and there does not appear to be any good ground to invoke its extra ordinary jurisdiction in the present matter.
In view of the above, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. Hence it is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.