Neutral Citation No . ( 2025:JHHC:29382 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 684 of 2003 ------ 1. Nilam Kaur @ Mosomat Nilam Kuar W/o Late R.N Tiwari 2. Murlidhar Tiwari 3. Binod Kant Tiwari 4. Arun Kumar Tiwari 5. Nawal Kishore Tiwari 6. Taramani Tiwari 7. Niraj Tiwari son of Late Rabindra Nath Tiwari Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 all sons of Late Nand Kumar Tiwari. All residents of village Chatti, P.S. Daltonganj, District- Palamau 8. Pratima Debi wife of Ashoke Pandey, resident of village Sudna, P.S:- Daltonganj, District:- Palamau ……Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rajkaran Tiwari (since deceased) 3. Shankar Tiwari son of Sri Dwarika Tiwari Both resident of village Chhati Senduriya, P.O Daltonganj, District:- Palamau ....…Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P For the O.P No. 2 : X For the O.P No.3 : None ------ JUDGMENT C.A.V On: 08.07.2025 Prounounced On: 24.07.2025 Neutral Citation No . ( 2025:JHHC:29382 ) 2 This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners by challenging the judgment dated 24.02.2003 passed in Criminal Revision No. 85 of 1999 by Sri S.N Prasad, then learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau by which the learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau had set aside the order dated 31.08.1999 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 437 of 1990 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Daltonganj by which the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Daltonganj had declared the possession of the petitioners over the disputed land for the second time under Section 145 Cr.P.C and the learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau has observed that any of the aggrieved parties may seek relief in the matter before the competent Court i.e. Civil Court to get decided the matter once for all. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the predecessor, in the interest of the petitioners namely Nand Kumar Tiwari had purchased a land from Smt. Most Chandri Bhuin and Smt. Jharoiya by registered sale deed dated 15.03.1972 under Khata No. 32, Plot No. 64, area 0.01 acre and Plot No. 65, area 0.14 ½ acre of village Chatti (Sinduria), P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau and after purchasing the said land, came in peaceful possession of the land. Thereafter, he applied for mutation before Circle Officer-cum-Block Development Office, Daltonganj, which was numbered as Mutation Case No. 33 of 1974-75 and which was allowed on 29.04.1974. After the death of said Nand Kumar Tiwari, his legal heirs were paying the rent to the State of Bihar and thereafter, to the State of Jharkhand up to 2003 and they were in peaceful possession of the land. Thereafter, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 started disturbing the possession of the petitioners in Neutral Citation No . ( 2025:JHHC:29382 ) 3 the year 1990 and claimed that the said land was purchased by them through the sale deed no. 12522 dated 23.12.1989, Khata No. 32 area in Plot No. 64 area 0.01 and Plot No. 65 area 0.14 1/2 acres total area 0.15 ½ acres of land of village Chatti, P.S. Daltonganj from Kabutari Bhuia and Samundri Bhuia. Thereafter, the Predecessor in interest of the petitioners filed a petition on 21.06.1990 before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Daltonganj stating all the facts which were registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 437 of 1990 and prayed that a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C may be started and the second party may be restrained from going over the said land. Then, both the opposite parties had filed their respective show cause and documents and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Daltonganj by his order dated 06.08.1990 had converted the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Daltonganj vide order dated 12.08.1994 had declared the possession of land to the petitioners. Then, the original O.P Nos. 2 (deceased) and the O.P No. 3 had filed a revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, Palamau bearing Criminal Revision No. 74 of 1994. However, the said case was heard by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau and who had illegally remitted the case back to the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Daltonganj vide order dated 01.05.1998 (Annexure-2) of this Criminal Revision Application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State, but none appears for the O.P No. 3 on 03.07.2025, 07.07.2025 and 08.07.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Neutral Citation No . ( 2025:JHHC:29382 ) 4 impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that even after remand, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Daltonganj vide order dated 31.08.1999 had again declared the possession of the petitioners on the land in question and which was challenged by the original O.P Nos. 2 and 3 by filing Criminal Revision No. 85 of 1999 which was transferred to the Court of Sri. S.N Prasad, then learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau. However, the learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau had set aside the order dated 31.08.1999 without any cogent reason and hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below may be set aside and this Criminal Revision Application may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2003 passed by the learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Daltonganj had decided the case of the petitioners on the basis of title deed and hence, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Daltonganj had committed grave illegality by declaring the possession of the petitioners over the lands in question. It is submitted that the witnesses of the second party and documents have fully supported the case of the original O.P Nos. 2 and 3 and hence, this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and from going through the records of this case, it appears that the learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau has observed that the evidence of O.P.W-7 reveals that vendors had not got issued any receipt in Neutral Citation No . ( 2025:JHHC:29382 ) 5 their favours. 7. It appears from the order sheet that the above Criminal Revision Application was admitted on 14.02.2005 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Amareshwar Sahay, as then his Lordship was) of this Court. 8. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the another Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Anant Bijay Singh, as then his Lordship was) of this Court on 31.01.2018 and 07.03.2018 on the ground that one I.A No. 569 of 2018 was filed on behalf of the petitioner for substituting the legal heirs of O.P No. 2 Rajkaran Tiwari but later on, the said I.A No. 569 of 2018 was dismissed as not pressed before the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Anant Bijay Singh, as then his Lordship was) of this Court. However, the Co-ordinate Bench further observed that this Criminal Revision may be heard against the State of Jharkhand and O.P No. 3 namely Shankar Tiwari. 9. It also appears that the first party-petitioners had obtained the sale deed in the year 1972 vide sale deed dated 15.03.1972 and their names were mutated on 29.04.1974 vide Mutation Case No. 33 of 1974-75 and they were paying rent to the State of Bihar and later on, to the State of Jharkhand till the year 2003. However, the original O.P Nos. 2 and 3 had got executed sale deed on 23.12.1989 on the same piece of land of Khata No. 32 area in Plot No. 64 area 0.01 and Plot No. 65 area 0.14 1/4 acres total area 0.15 ½ acres of land at P.S. Daltonganj from Kabutari Bhuia and Samundri Bhuia. 10. It transpires that then learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau had passed cryptic order without discussing the evidence on merit of both the sides and the documents filed by the parties and has passed the impugned Neutral Citation No . ( 2025:JHHC:29382 ) 6 judgment dated 24.02.2003 by setting aside the order dated 31.08.1999 passed by then learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Daltonganj without giving any reason. 11. Accordingly, the judgment dated 24.02.2003 passed in Criminal Revision No. 85 of 1999 by then learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/or his successor Court to pass order afresh in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. Thus, Criminal Revision No. 684 of 2003 is allowed and remitted to the learned Court below with the above observation and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/ N.A.F.R