JUDGMENT 1. - The miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the delivery of possession of 7 Bighas of land situated in Chak 17-G.G.R., Stone No. 186/272, bearing Khasra Numbers 12,13,18, 19,20.21 and 22. to Harmail Singh (respondent No. 2) in a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Station House Officer, Police Station. Tibbi, filed a complaint under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sangaria, relating to the land situated in village Masani Chak No. 17-G.G.R., Stone No. 186/272, Kila No. 12,13 and 18 to 22. It has been in the complaint that this land belongs to late Kala Singh who died in the month of October, 1984. Kala Singh's Power of Attorney-holder Vasan Singh agreed to sold this land vide an agreement dated 28-7-84, for consideration of Rs. 15,000/- per Kila to Harmail Singh and handed over the possession of the land to Harmail Singh and an agreement to sale was, also executed on the same day. Kala Singh had no issue and, therefore, after the death of Kala Singh, his land was mutated in the name of his widow Smt. Dhan Kaur. Smt. Dhan Kaur, on 3-6-85, by an agreement to sale, agreed to sell this land to Mahar Singh and took an advance of Rs. 20,000/-. She made an application before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, for granting permission to sell this land and the permission was granted by the Collector Sri Ganganagar, on 7-5-87 Smt, Dhan Kaur even after grant of the permission by the Collector, did not execute the sale-deed in favour of Mohar Singh It was also. mentioned in the complaint that on 3-11-88, Harmail Singh forcibly entered into the land and, therefore, an FIR was lodged by Mohar Singh against Harmail Singh and others and on 4-11-88, a case was registered against Harmail Singh and others under Sections 467 and 506 Indian Penal Code. Both the parties, i e , Party No. 1 Harmail Singh and Party No. 2 Mohar Singh, wanted to take forcible possession over the land in question and, therefore, there is a likelihood of breach of peace. On the basis of this complaint, the learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate. Both the parties, i e , Party No. 1 Harmail Singh and Party No. 2 Mohar Singh, wanted to take forcible possession over the land in question and, therefore, there is a likelihood of breach of peace. On the basis of this complaint, the learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate. Sangaria, drew a preliminary order and registered the case on 2-12-88 As there was an apprehension of breach of peace, the learn,ed Magistrate, therefore, ordered for attachment of the land in question and appointed the Tehsildar, Tibbi, as the Receiver. On 4-12-88, the Tehsildar, Tibbi, attached the land in question and took-over the possession over the land in question. Both the parties, also filed suits against Smt Dhan Kaur the widow of Kala Singh in the Court of the Additional District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, for specific performance of the contracts entered into between the parties and both the suits are still pending in that Court. In the suit filed by Harmail Singh, he moved an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for the grant of temporary injunction but the application for the grant of temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. Harmail Singh filed a revision petition before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No 2, Hanumangarh, by which the application for grant of temporary injunction was allowed and the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, ordered for maintenance of status quo with respect to the possession over the land in question. In the suit filed by Mohar Singh, Harmail Singh moved an application under Order I rule 10 -C.P C. to implead him as a party, but later on he did not press that application and the same was dismissed. The net result is that in the suit filed by Harmail Singh. Mohar Singh has not been included as respondent and likewise, in t ie suit by Mohar Singh, Harmail Singh has not been included as a respondent and both the cases have been filed against Smt. Dhan Kaur for specific performance of the contracts. The net result is that in the suit filed by Harmail Singh. Mohar Singh has not been included as respondent and likewise, in t ie suit by Mohar Singh, Harmail Singh has not been included as a respondent and both the cases have been filed against Smt. Dhan Kaur for specific performance of the contracts. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent before the learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sangaria, regarding the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that with respect to the same land, civil suits are pending, in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, and two parallel proceedings cannot be allowed to continue The learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sangaria, rejected the application filed by Mohar Singh and refused to drop the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code pending in his Court. Mohar Singh filed a revision petition against this order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, which was, also, dismissed. He, thereafter, preferred a miscellaneous petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code before this Court. and this court vide order dated 6-8-92, allowed the miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, quashed and set-aside the order dated November 20, 1991, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanuman garb, as well as the order dated May 24, 1992. passed by the Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sangaria, and quashed the proceedings pending under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sangaria, in Criminal Case No. 32 of 1992. alongwith the order passed by him. After the decision given by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 11 of 1992, petitioner Mohar Singh, on 12-8-92, moved an application before the learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sangaria, for droping the proceedings pending under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and for handing over the possession of the land in question to him. Alongwith the application, the certified copy of the order was, also, produced. The learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate fixed the case of arguments on the application on 19-8-92 and directed the Tehsildar, Tibbi, not to auction the land till 20-8-92. Arguments on the application could not be heard on 19-8.92, and, also, on the adjourned dates, i.e.. 24-8-92, 27-8-92. 3-9-92. 7-9-92. 21-9-92, 3-10-92. 19-10-92 and 21-10-92. The learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate fixed the case of arguments on the application on 19-8-92 and directed the Tehsildar, Tibbi, not to auction the land till 20-8-92. Arguments on the application could not be heard on 19-8.92, and, also, on the adjourned dates, i.e.. 24-8-92, 27-8-92. 3-9-92. 7-9-92. 21-9-92, 3-10-92. 19-10-92 and 21-10-92. While the application for dropping the proceeding was pending before the learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sangaria, in the meanwhile, the Tehsildar, Tibbi the Receiver of the land in question auctioned the land on 1-9-92, and handed-over the possession of the land to the highest-bidder Harmail Singh The Receiver, also, forwarded the papers for confirmation of the bids to the Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sangaria. The learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sangaria, confirmed the highest bid by its order dated 19-10-92. Later on, this order of confirmation was withdrawn when an application was moved by petitioner Mohar Singh before the learned Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sangaria. The learned Magistrate thereafter, by its order dated 16-11-92, allowed the application filed by petitioner Mohar Singh and dropped the proceedings and directed the Tehsildar, Tibbi, to hand-over the possession of the land in question to the person, from whom the possession of the land was taken by the Receiver at the time when he was appointed as the Receiver. The Tehsildar, Tibbi, on 5-12-92. hand-over the possession of the land in question to Harmail Singh. This delivery of possession of the land in question to Harmail Singh has been challenged by petitioner Mohar Singh in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the possession over the land in question was taken by the Receiver from the petitioner on 4-12-88, as is clear from the entry made in the Ghatna-Bahi, which is signed by the Tehsildar, the Patwari and the Motbir witnesses and the Tehsildar, Tibbi, was wrong in delivering the possession over the land in question to Harmail Singh, as he was never in the possession of the land in question. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tehsildar, Tibbi, was wrong in delivering the mesne profit money to Harmail Singh Learned counsel for Harmail Singh on the other hand, has supported the action of the Tehsildar, Tibbi, in handing over the possession of land in question to him. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tehsildar, Tibbi, was wrong in delivering the mesne profit money to Harmail Singh Learned counsel for Harmail Singh on the other hand, has supported the action of the Tehsildar, Tibbi, in handing over the possession of land in question to him. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Harmail Singh that a compromise was arrived at between Harmail Singh and Smt. Dhan Kaur on 6-11-87, in the Civil Suit filed by Harmail Singh and she handed-over the possession of the land in question to Harmail Singh in pursuance to that compromise and he was in possession over the land in question, cultivated the land, also constructed two rooms over the land and as the possession was taken by the Receiver from him, therefore. the Receiver was right in banding-over the possession over the lard in question as well as the amount of mesne profit to him. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that the land in question belonged to Kala Singh and after his death, mutation was entered in the name of his widow Sat. Dhan Kaur. Vasan Singhthe Power of Attorney-holder of Kala Singh agreed to sell this land on 28-7-84, vide an agreement to sale the land and Smt. Dhan Kaur, on 3-6-85. agreed to sell this land to petitioner Mohar Singh and took an advance of Rs 20,000/-. In both the agreement to sell, it has been mentioned that the possession over the land in question has been delivered to the prospective purchaser. agreed to sell this land to petitioner Mohar Singh and took an advance of Rs 20,000/-. In both the agreement to sell, it has been mentioned that the possession over the land in question has been delivered to the prospective purchaser. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr PC between Hamad Singh and Smt Dhan Kaur were initiated-on 29-7-85, and the land in question was attached at that time but these proceedings ended in favour of Smt. Dhan Kaur on 10-12-86, and the possession over the land in question of Smt Dhan Kaur was declared and the Receiver was directed to hand over the possession over the land m question to Smt. Dhan Kaur and in pursuance to this order the possession over the land in question was handed over to Smt Dhan Kaur on 19-l2-86, and thereafter Smt. Dhan Kaur handed-over the possession of this land to Harmail Singh on 6-11-87, in pursuance to the compromise, arrived at between the parties and since then Harmail Singh was in possession of the land in question. while on the other hand, the case of Mohar Singh is that in pursuance to the agreement to sell dated 3-6-85 Snit. Dhan Kaur handed over the possession over the land in question to him and when Harmail Singh tried to take forcible possession over the land in question, he pleaded the case on behalf of Smt Dhan Kaur and the land in question was attached on :8-7-85, and the Receiver took over the possession over the land in question on 9.8 85. This case was ultimately decided in favour of Smt. Dhan Kaur on 10-12-86 and the possession over the land in question was delivered to Smt. Dhan Kaur. He pleaded the case on behalf of Smt. Dhan Kaur because the land in question was entered in the Revenue Record in her name. After the removal of the Receiver, the Collector, Sri Ganganagar granted permission to Smt. Dhan Kaur for the sale of this land on 7.5.87. The land in question remained in his possession since 3.6.85 to 9.8 85 and 11-12-86 to 4-12-88, when again it was attached and the Receiver was appointed, but as Smt Dhan Kaur refused to execute the sale deed in his favour, therefore, he filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of the contract in the Court of the learred Additional District Judge No. 2 Hanuman Garh. and, also, moved an application for grant of temporary injunction and the temporary injunction was granted in his favour and the possession over the land in question was in his favour and was taken at that time by the Receiver on 4-12-88 as is clear from the Ghatna-Bahi, as well as the report of the Patwari and the Tehsildar dated 16-11-87, and 20-7-87 Harman Singh. it appears. never remained in possession over the land in question and no temporary injunction was granted in his favour by the trial Court. rather a stay order was passed in favour of petitioner Mohar Singh. I he report of the Patwari of Halka Sheraka dated 16-11-87 and the further report dated 20-7-88, made on the application of the Petitioner Moharsingh, clearly show that the possession over the land in question was that of petitioner Mohar Singh and his crop was standing thereon. The entry in the Ghatna-Bahi, made by the Patwari Shereka dated 4-12-88 relating to taking of the possession of the land in question by the Receiver. clearly shows that the crop sown ou the land in question was that of Mohar Singh and in Kila No. 20. Mangal Singh (father of respondent Harmail Singh) was trying to raise a construction, who was asked not to do so as the land has been attached and is in possession of the Receiver. This entry in the Ghatna Bahi is signed by the Tehsildar, Tibbi, the Patwari, Shereka. Mohar Singh, Jeet Singh, Gurjant Singh and Sua Singh. It also, bears the thumb impressions of Resham Singh, Jarnail Singh. Jagdeo Singh and Jarnail Singh. This entry thus dearly shows that the petitioner's crop was Stan. ding over the land in question and from him the possession of the land in question was taken while Mangal Singh the father of Harmail Singh was forcibly trying to take possession over the land in question and to raise constructions over it. This Parcha-Moka bears illegible signatures without giving any description of the Officer concerned. It. ding over the land in question and from him the possession of the land in question was taken while Mangal Singh the father of Harmail Singh was forcibly trying to take possession over the land in question and to raise constructions over it. This Parcha-Moka bears illegible signatures without giving any description of the Officer concerned. It. also, bears the signatures of Mangal Singh and two Police Constables, but does not bear the signatures of any Motbir witness or even the signatures of the Patwari and has not been entered in any other documents and this Parcha Moka is, also silent about the possession of the crop standing on the land in question, while the entries in the Ghatna-Bahi shows the possession of petitioner Mohar Singh, from whom the possession was taken by the Receiver and, also, bears the signatures of the Tehsildar. the Patwari and other Motbir witnesses and has been duly entered in the Ghatna Bahi on 4-12-88. The possibility of Harmail Singh to come in possession over the land in question is, also, remote because the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, which were initiated between Harmail Singh and Smt. Dhan Kaur. ended in favour of Smt. Dhan Kaur and the Court held that Harmail Singh was not in possession over the land in question. In the Civil Suit, also, no temporary injunction was granted in favour of Harmail Singh as he was not in possession over the land in question. Thus, the possession over the land in question was taken from petitioner Mohar Singh and therefore, the possession should have been handed-over to him by the Tehsildar. Tibbi. but the Tehsildar. Tibbi, wrongly handed-over the possession over the land in question to Harmail Singh. who even as per the Parcha-Moka dated 4-12-88, on which he has placed reliance, was not in possession over this land. Even otherwise. thus Parcha Moka does not inspire confidence as no corresponding entry in any of the record has been made and it is, also, not signed by any Motbir witness, while the entries made in the Ghatna-Bahi dated 4-12-88, maintained by the Patwari regularly. Even otherwise. thus Parcha Moka does not inspire confidence as no corresponding entry in any of the record has been made and it is, also, not signed by any Motbir witness, while the entries made in the Ghatna-Bahi dated 4-12-88, maintained by the Patwari regularly. bears the signatures of of the Tehsildar, the Patwari and the other Motbir witnesses, In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Tehsildar Tibbi was not justified in delivering the possession of the land in question to respondent Harmail Singh and, therefore, it is desirable, in the interest of justice. that the possession over the land in question may be taken from Harmail Singh and be handed-over to petitioner Mohar Singh from whom the possession of the land in question was taken by the Receiver. After the delivery of possession, an amount of mesne profit, amounting to Rs. 1,03,075/- (Rs. 52,400 + Rs. 23,400/- + Rs. 27,275/-) was, paid to Harmail Singh, which may be recovered from him and this amount may be deposited by the Court in a Scheduled Bank and may be paid to that person, in whose favour ultimately civil suit is decided. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by petitioner Mohar Singh, is allowed and the Tehsildar, Tibbi, is directed to take-over the possession of the land in question from Harmail Singh within a period of fifteen days from today and hand over the same to petitioner Mohar Singh. The Tehsildar, Tibbi, is further directed to recover the amount of Rs 1.03,075/- from Harmail Singh and deposit this amount in a Fixed Deposit Account in a Scheduled bank for one year and the same may be given to the person, in whose favour ultimately the civil suit is decided.Petition allowed. *******