Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2679 (RAJ)

Habat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2006-09-07

RAJESH BALIA

body2006
Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order under challenge is Annexure-7 dated 31.05.1993 passed by SDM, Jalore which reads as under; ßU;k;ky; mi&ftyk/khÓk] tkyksj (jktLFkku) Øekad % jktLo@93@3560 fnukad % 31-05-1993 okLrs %& rsglhynkj] tkyksjA fo"k;% ljdkj cuke gcrflag lkfdu nsynjh esa LFkxu vknsÓk oSdsV gksus ckcr~A & & & ljdkj&cuke&gcrflag o vU; ekStk nsynjh (rsglhy tkyksj) ds [k-ua- 500 jdck 25 ch?kk pkSng fcLok ckcr jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj ls LFkxu vknsÓk Fkk] tks oSdsV gks pqdk gSA vr% vki vfrÓkh?kz bl Hkwfe dk dCtk cgd ljdkj izkIr dj Jh izsek HkkEHkh oxSjkg ds uke bUnztkr dj ikyuk fjiksVZ Ókh?kz bl U;k;ky; dks lwfpr djsaA ;fn dCtk izkfIr esa fdlh izdkj dh vM+pu gks rks ,l-,p-vks- ck?kjk ls benkn ys yh tkosA ,l-Mh- mi&ftyk/khÓk tkyksj (jktLFkku) çfrfyfi % 1- izfrfyfi uk;c rsglhynkj] tkyksjA 2- izfrfyfi ,l-,p-vks-] ckxjkA 3- izfrfyfi iVokjh gYdk fccyljA 4- izfrfyfi Jh izsek HkkEHkh oxSjk dks lwpukFkZA ,l-Mh- mi&ftyk/khÓk tkyksj (jktLFkku)Þ 3. The petitioners claimed to be in possession of agriculture land measuring 25 Bighas 14 Biswas in Khasara No. 500 at Village Deldary since the time of their forefathers. However, during the settlement operations the same were wrongly recorded in the name of respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Thereafter, in pursuance of the settlement entries and the report submitted by Patwari, that though the land recorded in the name of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 but they were not in possession and the land was in physical cultivatory possession of Lichhman Singh father of the petitioner No. 1, it was ordered to be resumed to the Government by order dated 30.04.1976. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 30.04.76, the petitioner No. 1 and his father preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its order dated 03.03.1979 set aside the order of the SDM dated 30.04.1976 and the petitioners were permitted to continue in possession of the land. 5. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 on 15.06.1990 lodged the first information report under Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for dispossessing the petitioners from the land, as the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are member of the Scheduled Caste community. 5. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 on 15.06.1990 lodged the first information report under Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for dispossessing the petitioners from the land, as the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are member of the Scheduled Caste community. This led to filing of the D.B. Civil Write Petition No. 4140/1990 for quashing the FIR challenging the vires of the Act of 1989 in which writ petition and interim order was passed by Division Bench of this Court on 08.10.1990 staying the further proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge as regards the trial of the petitioners. 6. The aforesaid ad interim order was vacated later on to which reference is made in impugned order. In pursuance to the vacation of the ad interim order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition, the impugned order Annexure-7 was passed by the SDO, Jalore on 31.05.1993 directing that possession of the land in question be taken from the petitioners and the same be handed over to Prema Bhambhi and others. 7. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition before this Court had nothing to do with the respective rights claimed by the petitioner and respondents about the land in question, which had to be determined in appropriate proceedings for determination of such rights. Rights of parties were not and cannot be subject matter of criminal trial. The petition was purely connected with the criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Court in which the petitioners were accused which has nothing to do with their corporal rights in the land in question. The vacation of the interim order passed by this Court by which the further proceedings in the trial were stayed, had nothing to do with the continued right of the petitioner to remain in possession of the land until he cannot be dispossessed by any process known to law. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 states that the suit about the declaration or determination of rights in respect of the land in question is pending. These averments are also made in the writ petition and the copy of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in appeal has been filed along with rejoinder. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 states that the suit about the declaration or determination of rights in respect of the land in question is pending. These averments are also made in the writ petition and the copy of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in appeal has been filed along with rejoinder. The suit filed by the petitioners in respect of land in question against respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were initially dismissed on 28.12.1992 by the Assistant Collector but by the order dated 28.12.1992, the Revenue Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector and remitted the case back for deciding the case after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and decide the issue raised in the suit in accordance with law. 9. About these facts there is no dispute. 10.Therefore, it is apparent that so far as civil rights of the parties, in respect of the land in question are concerned, are pending in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Petitioners are in possession of said land since filing of suit for declarations of their title is also not in dispute and the dispute about the question of title is yet to be determined. 11. In these circumstances, merely because vacation of the ad interim order passed by Division Bench of this Court on 08.10.1990 staying the further proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge as regards the criminal trial of the petitioners in respect of complaint lodged by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 could not have given any ground, to SDM Jalore for dispossessing the petitioner in the garb of vacation the order passed by the High Court staying the criminal trial and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 could not be in possession and alter the possession pending the suit in which civil right of the respective parties were to be determined. The question of title to interest in land is not and cannot be subject matter of adjudication by criminal Court. The learned SDO, Jalore had no jurisdiction to dispossess the petitioner and resume it to Government or deliver the possession to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 or to confer any rights with reference to vacation of interim order which will only result in continuance of criminal proceedings. On that premise, the rights of respondent Nos. The learned SDO, Jalore had no jurisdiction to dispossess the petitioner and resume it to Government or deliver the possession to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 or to confer any rights with reference to vacation of interim order which will only result in continuance of criminal proceedings. On that premise, the rights of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to secure possession are de hors the out come of the proceedings in the writ petition. Right of the respective parties shall be determined in the pending suit and will be governed by its final result. Before that the SDO could not disposess the petitioner and put respondents No. 4 & 5 in possession merely because criminal proceedings had been allowed to be proceeded with. Hence the impugned order Annexure-6 cannot be sustained. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure-7 is quashed. There is no order as to costs.