Kartar Singh and ors. vs Gurmukh Singh and ors.

G. S. Chahal, J.

Kartar Singh and others who constitute a managing committee to conduct the affairs of Dharamshala at Jatike have come up in this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kapurthala dated 251990 and of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dated 151190.

The dispute between the parties relates to the land situated at village Jatike and Sangojia. measuring 47 Kanals 12 Marlas, which is Muafi Land, given for the maintenance of the Dharamshala. Originally Harnam Singh was working as Sewadar of the Dharamshala. After his death, Gurmukh Singh respondent started working as such. He, however, did not apply to become Mohatmim of the Dharamshala, but he tried to convert the landed property to his own use and claimed ownership of it. The village respectables requested him a number of times to carry out the old tradition and to spend the income of the landed property on the Dharam but he did not comply with the same. A committee consisting of the petitioners was then formed and possession of the land was taken over. Since then they have been in continuous possession of the said land. On 20490 Station House Officer of Dhilwan filed a calendra for taking action under section 145 of the Cr.P.C., to restrain both the sides from interfering in possession of the land. In this calendra it was specifically mentioned that the petitioners had been in continuous possession of this land and wheat crop was sown by them. In a civil suit instituted by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge I Class, vide its order dated 30487, the said court directed the maintenance of status quo regarding possession and this suit was still pending The respondent had filed an application before the District Collector for his appointment as Mohatmim of the land in dispute, but the same had been declined vide order dated 26.2.89. On the basis of the calendra filed, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, had, vide his order, dated 2590, directed the attachment of the disputed property and appointed Sh. Y.D. Saini, Tehsildar (Circle, Revenue Officer), Kapurthala as Receiver and directed him to take possession of the disputed land; Revision filed against this order was dismissed on 151190 by the Addl. Sessions Judge. These orders are challenged on the basis that the petitioners had been in peaceful possession of the disputed land and had sown wheat crop in Rabi 1990 and. there was already a civil. suit pending in which maintenance of status quo bed been ordered. In case the Sub Divisional Magistrate was satisfied that there was a dispute about the crop, only security proceedings could be initiated. The finding of the Addl. Sessions Judge that there was a dispute about possession of the land was incorrect.

The respondents did not prefer to file a reply to the petition. It is clear from the facts recorded in the order of the SDM that after the formation of the committee by the villagers the possession of The land had been taken over by that committee and that the crop was sown by it. It is, thus, the wheat crop which was the bone of contention between the parties. Both the parties were claiming possession over this land. It is also clear from this order that Gurmukh Singh applied for becoming Mohatmim of the Dharamshala. His application was rejected and he was not found to be a suitable person. It is also in the order that the parties had gone to the Civil Court where a suit was pending.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have already lost in revision before ''the Addl. Sessions Judge and a second revision was not competent. For that reason, no special grounds are made out for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C.

The, preliminary order and the order under section 146 (i) CrPC are interlocutory orders and norevision was maintainable. In this view of mine. I am supported by the observations of S.S. Grewal J in Gurdial Singh Mann v. Dharam Pal Singh Mann & Anr., 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 272 : 1990 (1) CLR 47 . The learned Addl. Sessions Judge had also found that the orders were interlocutory once he had so held he should have stayed his hands and not recorded any finding on merits once it was clear that the order was interlocutory and revision was not competent. There is, thus, no force in this preliminary objection. In Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of UP & ors., 1985(1) Recent CR. 278 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if ''a civil suit for title, possession and injunction is pending before the Civil Court, Criminal proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated pending the suit and on this principle, proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. with regard to attachment of the land under that order had been quashed.

In Gurmail Singh & ors. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate & ors., 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 238 : 1990 (2) CLR 539 , A.P. Chowdhri, J. held that where the dispute regarding possession is already pending adjudication before the civil Court and the parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and no untoward incident between the parties is reported since after the passing of the order of the Civil Court, attachment of the property in dispute and appointment of a receiver is clearly an abuse of process of the Court.

The principles of the above quoted authorities, thus, are attracted to the facts of the present case. There was no justification for the Executive Authorities to have initiated proceedings under section 145. Cr.P.C. and to attach the disputed lend regarding which a civil suit was already pending ''and a direction of maintenance of status quo had been issued I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.