Niranjan Singh vs State of Punjab and ors

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Niranjan Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 29th July, 1,092, Annexure P1 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala and for quashing the proceedings initiated under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The dispute in this case related to land comprising Khasra No. 109, 110, 111 situated in village Ucha Gaon, Tehsil Patiala. As per case of respondent No. 3 Prem Kumar, the land was owned by predecessor of one Ralla Singh from whom he purchased the same in the year 1978 and took possession. His possession was recorded in the revenue papers. In the year 1988, Nirajan Singh petitioner tried to take forcible possession of the land which led respondent No. 3 to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering in his possession. This suit which was instituted on May 29, 1988 was decreed in his favour by Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala vide judgment copy of which was Annexure R. 3/1. In spite of the decree, the petitioner tried to take forcible possession of the land and that resulted into the proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Respondent No. 2 Kartar Kaur claimed herself to be the owner of the land on the basis of an unregistered Will executed in her favour by Gujjar Singh, the real owner of the land. She entered into an agreement of sale with Niranjan Singhpetitioner at the rate of Rs 22,000/ per bigha but in the agreement the petitioner wrongly got recorded the word ''KILA'' instead of bigha. The petitioner tried to dispossess her which led her to move an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala who forwarded the same to the Senior Superintendent of Police. Patiala, An enquiry was conducted in the matter by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and after, recording the statements of the parties, be came to the conclusion that there was a chance of breach of peace as she was not in a position to protect her rights from the petitioner and his sons. A calendra for taking proceedings under Section 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was thus presented by Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Patiala

The petitioner alleged that Kartar Kaur respondent had entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute to him on 7111990 and she received a sum of Rs. 20,000/ as earnest money. He took possession of the land and his possession was admitted by respondent No 2. He had also filed a civil suit for specific performance against Kartar Kaur which was pending in the court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala, and Kartar Kaur had been restrained from alienating the land in dispute. He further alleged that against the decree which was passed in favour of respondent No. 3 he had preferred an appeal in the court of District Judge, Patiala and the appellate court had ordered that status quo should be maintained regarding possession of the land. When civil Court had ordered to maintain status quo regarding possession. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala was not competent to proceed under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he had acted beyond his jurisdiction. The impugned order was a non speaking order and it did not show as to how the Sub Divisional Magistrate was satisfied to proceed in the case.

Kartar Kaur respondent No. 2 in her written statement submitted that she was not a party to the suit filed by respondent No. 2 and the injunction order was passed only against the petitioner. She further pleaded that the impugned order was passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate after satisfying himself about the gravity of the situation. There was imminent danger of breach of peace that is why land was attached and an official receiver was appointed.

Respondent No. 3 in his return contended that he was in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land and civil court gave findings to that effect in his favour. The petitioner tried to take forcible possession of land which resulted into proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ralla Singh was the father of Katar Kaur respondent and Kartar Kaur in her affidavit had acknowledged the agreement between him and Ralla Singh dated 2381978.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and. have perused the record.

Admittedly the land in question was owned by Gujjar Singh. Prem Kumar and others claimed that Ralla Singh an heir of Gujjar Singh had agreed to sell the land to them and received the whole of the consideration. He put them in possession of the land in, 1978 and since then they were in continuous possession of the land their possession was upheld by the Civil Court vide Annexure RI. Case of Kartar Kaur respondent who is daughter of Ralla Singh was that she was the owner of the land on the basis of a will executed in her favour by Gujjar Singh. She agreed to sell the land to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 22,000/ per bigha but the petitioner, taking advantage of her illiteracy committed a fraud upon her and changed the terms of the contract. The petitioner under the garb of the agreement threatened to dispossess her. The petitioner on the other hand claimed that he was in possession of the land and in an appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent No. 3, the appellate court had ordered that status quo should be maintained regarding possession of the land. The impugned order Annexure P1 has not been assailed by respondents No. 2 and 3 The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as status quo regarding possession had been ordered, the Sub Divisional Magistrate could not initiate proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention of the learned counsel is without merit as that order was not binding on Kartar Kaur who was not a party to the civil suit. The petitioner has not produced copy of order whereby the appellate court ordered to maintain status quo regarding possession nor the date of that order is mentioned in the petition. A perusal of the order is mentioned in the petition. A perusal of the order Annexure P2 shows that no appeal had been preferred against the judgment and decree Annexure RI when the impugned order was passed on 17th September, 1992. The petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 and 3 claimed themselves to be in possession of the land. The learned trial court after fully considering ing the facts of the case found that dispute existed between the parties and there was imminent danger with regard to the subject of dispute. The case was one of emergency, and that is why he proceeded under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to avoid any mishappening. The land was attached vide Annexure P2 and Tehsildar Patiala was appointed as a receiver. The order Annexure P2 has not been assailed by the petitioner. Considering the circumstances of the case I find that the impugned order is quite legal and there is no justification for quashing the game.

As a result I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.