1. In this case the petitioner is aggrieved by an order made under Section 145 of the Cr PC, on 20th April, 1916, by Babu Matukdhari Singh, Deputy Magistrate at Chapra. It appears that a report was received from the police described in a proceeding dated 14th December, 1915 as the Mofussil Police, and action taken thereon under S. 145 sometime in November or December 1915. The proceedings are not before us but the essential facts thereof are clear from a certified copy on the record. The Mofussil Police reported that there was a dispute between Hardeo Singh, first party, and Ram Chariter Singh, second party, likely to cause a oreach of the peace. On this Mr. Karam Hussain, Deputy Magistrate, drew up proceedings under S. 145. Later a cross-report was received from the Revilganj Police that there was a dispute between Ram Chariter Singh, first party, and Hardeo Singh, second party, in regard, to sixty bighas of land which had been measured as plots Nos. 661 and 671-4714 at the Cadastral Survey and recorded in the name of Ram Chariter Singh. On receipt of this report the Deputy Magistrate compared the Mofussil Police Report with the Revilganj report and both with a judgment of 1905, which, is Ex. G of the record, and wrote as follows on the proceedings already taken on the report of the Mofussil Police:
“I have seen the judgment of case Section 145 of the CPC. That case refers to Survey Nos. 658, 664, 665, 651, 652, 653, 654 and 660. This is binding on both parties. This case is regarding plots Nos. 664, 665 and 535. The second party do not, claim plot No. 535, so there is no more dispute regarding the lands for which this proceeding was drawn up. The proceedings are, therefore, dropped. The second party are warned against enturing in plots Nos. 664, 665 and 535. From the report of Revilgunj Police Sub-Inspector it appears that there is dispute between the parties regarding the Survey plots Nos. 661 and ???—4714 and there is likelihood of a breach of the peace over these lands. A separate proceeding under Section 145 of the CPC, will be drawn up regarding these lands. The case is fixed for 8th January, 1915.”
2. Thereupon the proceedings on the Mofussil Report were filed and a fresh order sheet opened upon the Revilgunj report with the order:
“Dated 14th December 1915.— From the report of the Revilgunj Police Sub-Inspector it appears that there is dispute between the parties regarding the survey plots Nos. 661 and 671-4714 and there is likelihood of breach of the peace over these lands. A separate proceeding under Section 145 of the CPC, will be drawn up regarding these lands. The case is fixed for 8th January, 1915.”
3. On 18th December, 1915 a petition was filed by Hardeo Singh the second party, to the effect that there was a discrepancy in the Revilgunj report, inasmuch as plots Nos. 661 and 4714 measured only 32 bighas whereas the land said to be in dispute measured 60 bighas. Hardeo Singh also asserted that this 60 bighas was in fact the plots Nos. 664, 665 and 535, which in the proceedings upon the Mofussil Report Ram Chariter had given up. He therefore, asked that an amin be deputed to locate plots Nos. 664, 665 and 535, and that an order be issued on Ram Chariter to refrain from entering upon plots Nos. 664 and 665 as ordered in the proceedings on the Mofussil Report. On 22nd December, 1915 Mr. Karam Hussain ordered that an amin be deputed to demarcate plots Nos. 661, 4714, 664, 665 and 535 and submit a report with his map. On 31st January 1916 the amin submitted a report and a map. His map showed the position of the plots which he had been ordered to demarcate, and his report showed that the plots over which the parties were fighting measured 60 bighas as stated by the Revilgunj Police and was shown in the quadrangle L.N.O.J in his map. He further reported that 10 bighas of this quadrangle fell in plots Nos. 661-4714, that the whole of Nos. 664 and 665 was within the quadrangle and that the remainder of the quadrangle fell in plots Nos. 663, 666 and 669 of the survey map. He further stated that the plot L.N.O.J was parti land and that Ram Chariter and others claimed it as settled with them by the Dumraon Raj. Upon this report Mr. Hossain wrote:
“31st January 1916.— The amin has prepared a plan which shows the lands disputed by the partiss are within the boundary marked L.N.O.J and plots bearing Nos. 661-4714. It is to be noted that there was a case under Section 145 of the CPC, about Nos. 665 and 664 which is within L.N.O.J, in which it was held that these plots are in possession of Hardeo Singh and others. No evidence is required for these plots. The judgment of the Court is binding on both parties. Draw up proceedings regarding the disputed land, calling on both parties to show cause on 14th February, 1916 to file their written statements and adduce evidence regarding their claim to actual possession. Matbar Singh is added as second party to the case.”
4. On 23rd February the case was transferred to the file of Babu Modeswara Singh Deputy Magistrate. He on 8th March, 1916 wrote:
“On going through the written statements filed by the parties and the petition filed by the first party, I find that the plot of land marked in amin's map within L.N.O.J is only in dispute, so amend proceedings accordingly as prayed for by the first party.”
5. The proceedings were amended and a number of other parties added on information given in the written statements. On 1st April 1916 the case was transferred to the file of Babu Matukdhari Singh. After a prolonged hearing Ram Chariter Singh and others were declared to be in possession of the whole quadrangle L.N.O.J With regard to plots Nos. 664 and 665 the Deputy Magistrate has written:
“From the proceeding, Ex. F, in the 145 case of 1905 and the proceeding in the present case. I am not in a position to say if the land in dispute in the present case formed part of the subject-matter of the dispute in the preceding case. From the judgment, Ex. G, in the first 146 case it appears that plots Nos. 664 and 665 were held to be in possession of Hardeo Singh and others. But this occurred in 1905 and there may have been some changes.”
6. Clearly this was most unfair to Hardeo Singh and his party. The land had been shown by the amin to be parti. It had been identified as plots Nos. 664 and 665. Mr. Karam Hossain had on 14th December, 1915 warned Ram Chariter and his party against entering on plots Nos. 664 and 665 and had on 31st January 1916 promised Hardeo that his possession in these plots should be maintained. The High Court will interfere in only very exceptional cases with orders made under S. 145. We have see forth the facts at full length in order, that it may be clear that they were in this case probably unique. There has been an express direction made by M. Karam Hossain under S. 145(5) that the proceedings with regard to plots Nos. 664 and 665 be cancelled. This direction was again emphasised in a later order. It must be presumed that the orders of Mr. Modeswara Singh were issued in the same spirit as those of Mr. Karam Hossain. The question of possession in plots Nos. 664 and 665 was not before Mr. Matukdhari Singh at all.
7. He had no legal authority to go into the question of possession in these plots. His order declaring Ram Chariter Singh and others to be in possession of plot Nos. 664 and 665, was made without legal authority. We declare it null and void. The order of Mr. Matukdhari Singh in respect of so much of the quadrangl L.N.O.J as is not covered by plot Nos. 664 and 665 was legally made. He orders in respect of plots Nos. 664 an 665 were illegally made and are ??? declared a nullity. The District Magistrate will maintain Ram Chariter Singh and others in possession of so much ??? the quadrangle L.N.O.J as is ??? covered by plots Nos. 664 and 665. He will maintain Hardeo Singh in possession of plots Nos. 664 and 665 ??? evicted in due course of law.
V.S/R.K
8. Orders modified.