Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 661 (RAJ)

Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2016-05-10

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 23.06.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Cr.Revision No.10/2007, whereby the revisional court has rejected the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 28.04.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in the proceedings under section 145 CrPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on an application filed by the then S.H.O., Police Station, Khuhari, District Jaisalmer, the trial court initiated the proceedings under section 145 CrPC against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 01.11.2001 and ordered for attachment of the land of Khasra No.53/113, 56, 57, 64, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75 and 76 measuring about 56 Bighas and 18 Biswas situated at village Manpiya Khadeen (in brevity 'the land in question' hereinafter) and appointed the then S.H.O. Police Station, Khuhari as receiver. The petitioners as well as respondent No.3 had moved applications before the trial court for releasing the land in question from attachment and for handing over the possession of same to them. The S.D.M. vide order dated 28.02.2007 dropped the proceedings under section 145 CrPC and released the land in question from attachment and also ordered the receiver to handover the possession of the land in question to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioners preferred a revision before the revisional court, however, the revisional court has dismissed the said revision petition and affirmed the order passed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were in possession of the land in question at the time of attachment and therefore, the trial court grossly erred in directing the receiver to handover the possession of the land in question to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of the Court towards the order dated 9th December 1975 passed by the District Collector, Jaisalmer in Revenue Misc. Case No.145/1975 and argued that in the said order, the District Collector, Jaisalmer had given a finding that the persons, from whom the land in question was purchased by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, have no authority to sell the land in question. Case No.145/1975 and argued that in the said order, the District Collector, Jaisalmer had given a finding that the persons, from whom the land in question was purchased by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, have no authority to sell the land in question. It is further submitted that the District Collector had thereafter directed the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer to initiate proceedings under section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for the purpose of referring the matter to the Board of Revenue. It is also argued that pursuant to that direction, the matter was referred to the Board of Revenue, however, the courts below without taking into consideration the aspect of the matter, illegally passed the impugned orders. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have stated that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had purchased the land in question through registered sale-deed from the land holders and they were in possession at the time of attachment of the same. It is further submitted that the registered sale-deed executed in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3 was challenged by the petitioners by way of a civil suit in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, however, the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer vide judgment dated 27.01.2007 and taking into consideration this aspect of the matter as well as the perusal of the revenue record, wherein the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been recorded as Khatedar, the trial court as well as the revisional court have rightly passed the impugned orders. 5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned orders and carefully scrutinized the record. 6. At the time of passing of the preliminary order under section 145 CrPC., the trial court has observed that on the basis of the material available before it, it is not in a position to conclude that which party is in possession and the situation is emergent, therefore, it will be in the fitness of things that the land in question be put under attachment and the S.H.O., Police Station, Khuhari be appointed as receiver. Later on, the petitioners preferred a suit for cancellation of the registered sale-deed executed in favour of respondent Nos. Later on, the petitioners preferred a suit for cancellation of the registered sale-deed executed in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the land in question by the Khatedar of land, however, the said suit was dismissed by the District Judge, Jaisalmer vide order dated 27.07.2007. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also been recorded as Khatedar of the land in question and mutation has also been sanctioned in their favour. The trial court as well as the revisional court have also found that the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence either documentary or oral to prove that they were in possession of the land in question. The trial court has observed that once the civil court has decided the dispute between the parties in which the suit filed by the petitioners has been dismissed, the proceedings under section 145 CrPC are not liable to be continued and since in the revenue record, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the title holder of the land in question, therefore, the possession of the same be handed over to them. 7. This Court is also of the opinion that when the petitioners have failed to prove their possession over the land in question by any kind of evidence and the civil court has dismissed their suit for cancellation of the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in relation to the land in question, the courts below have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders.Hence, no interference is called for in this criminal misc. petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******