Malda Training Diary - Administrative Training Institute

To:
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malda.
From:
Pradip Bhattacharya,
Asstt. Magistrate & Collector, Malda.
Sir,
Page 142 of 142
Ref: Case No.- 616 P/71 u/s/144 Cr.P.C.
Petitioners – Salimuddin Mondol s/o Late Natu Mondol,
Village Ulsipara, P.S. Bamangola.
Opposite Party – Piyar Mohammad & others.
10 February, 1972
In compliance with your order dated 19/1/72 & 7/2/72, I held a spot enquiry into the
case on 9/2/72, in the course of which I interrogated the following witnesses:-
Rabitulla Mondol, Village Durgapur |
Mohiruddin, Village Satulipara | for the petitioner
Kasimuddin Sarkar, Village Ulsipara |
Khus Mohammad, Village Ulsipara |
Bilat Ali, ----do----- | for the opposite party
Khoka Mondol, ----do----- |
Lalu Sarkar, Village Bintara --- independent witness found by me, nephew of the
original
owner of the Land, Charan Mondol.
S.R.Dhar, OC Bamangola Thana
The facts which came to light are as follows:-
The petitioner was unable to produce any other witness besides Kasimuddin Sarkar
from the village Ulsipara where the land in question is situated, to support his plaint. On the
other hand, the opposite party was able to produce a large number of local villagers, besides
the ones mentioned above, to support his claim, which was further bolstered up by land
records.
I also found overwhelming majority of witnesses who testified that the land in
question was at present in actual physical possession of Piyar Mod. the opposite party. These
are reliable witnesses since they cultivate “Pan Baraj” in plots adjacent to the land in
question. Further, Lalu Sarkar, nephew of the original owner of the land, Charan Mondal,
also testified to the fact of the opposite party’s actual physical possession of the land.
Further, the petitioner stated that the dispute had been set at rest on 14/1/72 in the
presence of the O.C., Bamangola Thana, by his receiving Rupees Four Hundred (Rs.400/-
only) from the opposite party towards satisfying whatever claims he (the petitioner) had
concerning the said land. Both the O.C. and the opposite party confirmed this. The opposite
party, for reasons of his own, admitted this to me in private, but denied it in the presence of
the O.C. and others. His reasons are not relevant to the scope of the enquiry as ordered by
you, though they throw important light on the merits of the case, hence I refrain from
reproducing them.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the enquiry, therefore, is that:-
a) Actual physical possession of the Land in question is in the hands of Piyar Mod.
the opposite party;