Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 195 (RAJ)

Ram Ratan v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-27

VINEET KOTHARI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsels. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar allowing the revision of the respondents Darshan Singh and Nayab Singh directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raisinghnagar to hand-over possession of the disputed land to the person from whom the possession was taken on 30.05.2009 after passing of the order by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 21.05.2009. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners Ram Ratan and Shiv Dayal have approached this Court by way of present revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. G.R. Goyal has urged that on the complaint filed by the present petitioners before the Police on 03.05.2009 at about 4 p.m. in the evening the respondents Jeet Singh, Tej Kaur, Darshan Singh, Vikar Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Nayab Singh etc. forcibly entered the disputed land with their tractor and started cultivating the said land, whereas the present petitioners Ram Ratan and Shiv Dayal has entered into an agreement of sale with their father Label Singh and the petitioners were put in possession under the said agreement and therefore, on account of said forcible dispossession by the respondents, the peace was likely to be disturbed and therefore, the proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code were drawn by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raisinghnagar on the complaint of the Police and after hearing both the parties, the learned SDM passed that said order on 21.05.2009 appointing the Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar as Receiver for the disputed land of 6 bighas situated in square No. 228/336 killa No. 11, 12, 19 to 22 of chak 2 APD (B). The respondent Darshan Singh and Nayab Singh approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar by way of revision petition under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code and the Revisional Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar passed the impugned order on 16.08.2010 setting aside the order dated 21.05.2009 and 25.05.2009 and directing the Teshildar, Raisinghnagar to hand-over the possession back to the person from whom the said possession was taken by him on 30.05.2009, namely, the respondents. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioners have approached this Court by way of present revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioners have approached this Court by way of present revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. G.R. Goyal submitted that when the complaint itself was filed with the police by the present petitioners stating that the respondents had forcibly dispossessed them on 03.05.2009, there was no question of learned Courts below directing the possession to be handed over back to the persons, namely, the respondents herein from whom the possession was taken on 30.5.2009 and not 03.05.2009. The learned Revisional Court below has fallen into error in passing the said order in the revision petition. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Trilok Joshi, has urged that on 30.05.2009 since the possession was admittedly taken from Darshan Singh and Nayab Singh, the learned Court below has rightly allowed the revision petition filed by them and has directed the possession to be handed over to them. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. Proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. provides that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a Police Officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after the date and before the date of his order under sub-Section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-Section (1). Since the matter proceeded on the police complaint which was filed by the present petitioners in which it was alleged that they were forcibly dispossessed on 03.05.2009 by the respondents, without arriving at the findings that they were not dispossessed on 03.05.2009, the learned Court below could not have arrived at the conclusion that possession was with the respondents Darshan Singh and Nayab Singh on the basis of report of Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar. The civil rights of the parties are apparently to be decided in the civil suit filed by the present petitioners for the specific performance of the contract, but that has nothing to do with the proceedings under Section 145/146 Criminal Procedure Code which have been initiated to maintain peace, Law and order in respect of dispute threatening breach of peace. The civil rights of the parties are apparently to be decided in the civil suit filed by the present petitioners for the specific performance of the contract, but that has nothing to do with the proceedings under Section 145/146 Criminal Procedure Code which have been initiated to maintain peace, Law and order in respect of dispute threatening breach of peace. Thus the possession of the disputed land has to be maintained with the persons who were forcibly dispossessed or sought to be dispossessed by the other party. Since in the present case, the present petitioners had filed the police complaint in question alleging forcible dispossession on 03.05.2009 and there was no evidence to the contrary brought on the record before the Courts below, the findings of the learned Court below in the impugned order dated 16.08.2010 directing the possession to be handed over to the respondents Darshan Singh and Nayab Singh as the possession was taken from them on 30.05.2009 and not on 03.05.2009 which appears to be confusion of the date with the learned Court below, cannot be sustained. 9. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated 16.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar is quashed and set aside.Petition Allowed. *******