Jagir Singh vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the Calendar Annexure P/13, order Annexure P/14 and all further proceedings pending in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Ropar.

The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute which was described in the revenue record as Gair Mumkin Nadi. The land was mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat, Bhagwantpura on 22.9.1989 in pursuance to an order passed by Collector, Ropar. Thereafter Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch filed an application before the District Development and Panchayats Officer cumCollector, Ropar who ordered the eviction of the petitioners on 11.1.1991. On 21.2.1992 Gram Panchayat, Bhagwantpura passed a resolution to the effect that possession of the land was taken on 29.5.1992 from the petitioners and thereafter Sugarcane and Potato crops were sown, but the petitioners were preparing to uproot the same. These persons may be restrained and the crops be harvested with the help of the police. A copy of this resolution was sent to Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ropar, who forwarded the resolution to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, vide his covering letter dated 24.2.1992. The documents were received at Police Station, Ropar, and thereafter an enquiry was held. Both the parties claimed possession over the land in dispute. Although the land was given on lease to Narinder Singh, Mewa Singh and Gurcharan Singh by the Gram Panchayat, they were not successful in sowing the crops, but the crops were sown by the petitioners forcibly. Sub Inspector Balwant Singh, therefore, apprehending a quarrel between the parties submitted Calendar before Executive Magistrate, Roop Nagar, for initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.

On receipt of the Calendar the Executive Magistrate gave notice to both the parties and appointed Tehsildar, Roop Nagar as receiver vide order Annexure P/14. The petitioners contended that in fact they were never dispossessed from the land in question and in order to dispossess them proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated. The High Court had already ordered statusquo regarding possession on 10.6.1991 and by initiating proceedings for attachment of the property that order was also flouted. Even in the Calendar it was mentioned that they were in established possession of the land and the crops had been sown by the them.

Notice of the petition was given to the respondents, but no return was filed.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that they were in possession of the land which was ''Shamlat'' for the last 40 years and entries in the khasra girdawari were in their names upto the year 1991. They were never actually dispossessed at the spot and they had obtained an order of statusquo regarding possession from this Court. When they were in established possession initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were not justified. It was further urged that the Executive Magistrate had not given any findings that the case was one of emergency or that none of the parties was in possession of disputed property. So order Annexure P/14 suffered infirmity of nonapplication of mind.

A perusal of various documents placed on record and the averments made in the Calendar shows that the petitioners as well as the Gram Panchayat claimed to be in possession of the land. Admittedly the petitioners were cultivating the land in question upto the year 1991 but thereafter an order of eviction was passed against them and the Gram Panchayat contended that possession of the land was taken on 29.5.1991 through revenue department in accordance with law and also with the help of the police. The land could not be leased in open auction so it was given on Batai to Narinder Singh, Mewa Singh and Gurcharan Singh. In this way both the parties asserted that they were in possession of the land and there was an apprehension of breach of peace. The proceedings were, therefore, rightly initiated and are not liable to be quashed.

The order Annexure P/14 has not been properly passed. A bare glance through subsection (1) of Section 145 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the Executive Magistrate has to pass an order regarding his satisfaction from the report of the police officer or upon any information that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace exists concerning the land or water or the boundaries thereof and thereafter he will require the parties to such dispute to attend the Court and file written statements of their respective claims in respect of the fact of actual possession of the subject in dispute. The impugned order Annexure P/14 appointing Tehsildar, Roop Nagar as receiver suffers from infirmity of nonapplication of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case as it is nowhere stated that the case was one of emergency or that the dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning the land in question. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

As both the rival parties assert their claim to be in actual possession of the land in dispute, the proceedings have been rightly initiated but the order Annexure P/14 is not proper. The same is quashed. The Executive Magistrate will continue the proceedings and pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law.