Ram Dhari and others vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate and others

Gurnam Singh, J.—Ram Singh, Daryao Singh, Pritam Singh, Gugan Singh, Hoshiar Singh, Dalbir Singh and Joginder Singh, respondents Nos. 3 to 9 had taken 954 kanals 7 marlas of land situated in village Guhna, tehsil Kaithal district Kurukshetra, on lease from Jit Gir respondent No. 10 for a period of 20 years, which was scheduled to expire in Rabi, 1973. On 3rd April, 1972 i.e. about 14 months prior to the expire of the lease, Jit Gir executed a new lease-deed in favour of Ram Dhari etc., the petitioners, it is alleged by the petitioners that they came into possession of the land in pursuance of the lease deed executed by Jit Gir. It is further urged by them that the respondents Nos. 3 to 9 fell in dispute with them and that they moved the police authorises on which proceeding u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 were started in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, on 19th June, 1973. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate attached the property in dispute on 10th July, 1973 and appointed the Tehsildar, Kaithal, as receiver, to whom the possession of the land, in dispute was delivered on the same day. Respondents Nos. 3 to 9 filed a revision petition against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, for getting it order of attachment; quashed bit it was later on withdrawn.

Hoshiar Singh and Ram Singh respondents had filed two suits Nos. 243 and 244 of 1973 on 12th April, 1973, respectively, against the petitioners for permanent injunctions and obtained ad interim stay of their dispossession. The ad interim stay orders were confirmed on 15th June, 1973. It may also be mentioned here that these suits are still pending

Ram Dhari etc., the subsequent lessees have filed this petition for quashing the proceedings u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, District Kurukshetra, on the ground that inview of the suits filed by respondents nos 3 and 7 which are still pending in the Court the proceedings u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 are without jurisdiction. They further requested that at the time the Tehsildar took possession of the land, they were in possession of the same as is apparent from the report dated 10th July, 1973 and therefore, the possession should be restored to them and that a direction to that effect be issued to the Tehsildar.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioners in order to prove the possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute has mainly relied upon the report dated 10th July 1973 and urged that it is mentioned in this report that at the time of giving the possession, the crops of Ram Dhari son of Mangal and others were standing on the land in dispute.

On the police report which was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal, on 29th June. 1973, an order for attachment of the land in dispute was passed on 10th July, 1973. Ram Singh respondent had filed objection petition in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 9th of July, 1973, stating therein that the civil suits were pending and stay orders had been issued in their favour and that they were in possession of the land in suits. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the objection petition of Ram Singh saying that the police report had revealed that there was every likelihood of breach of peace between the parties with regard to the possession and cultivation of the land, in view of the objection petition filed by Ram Singh on 9th July, 1973, the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were in possession of the land, that they delivered the same to the Tehsildar on 10th of July, 1973 and that the report was signed by Ram Singh do not appear to be plausible. Moreover, the bare perusal of the report dated 10th July, 1973, shows that the writing to the effect that the crops of Ram Dhari, Mangal, Dina, Kanhaiya etc., patted fit were standing in the land, appears to have been over written and its genuineness can be doubted. There is no other documentary evidence to show that the petitioners were put in to possession of the disputed land on 15th June, 1973. The report dated 10th July, 1973 is no doubt signed by Ram Singh and Chanda Singh who is the son of Hoshiar Singh respondent, but if the Tehsildar had taken possession of the land from Ram Dhari etc. on 11th of July, 1973, and Ram Singh agreed to that by putting is signatures on the report, his (Ram Singh''s) objection petition dated 9th July, 1973 is un-understandable. In his objection petition dated 9th July, 1973 Ram Singh definitely stated that they were in possession of the land and the petitioners had been (sic) from interfering with their possession. Moreover, simply on the basis of the report dated 10th July, 1973, which has to be proved yet, it cannot be held that the petitioners were in possession of the land. So for determining the possession of the land on 10th July, 1973, we shall have to refer back to the order of the Sub-Judge dated 15th June, 1973, vide which the present petitioners were restrained from interfering with the possession of respondents Nos. 3 to 9.

Admittedly suits Nos. 243 and 244 of 1973 had been filed by Ram Singh and Hoshiar Singh respondents on 12th April, 1973 and they had obtained ad interim stay of their dispossession. The an interim stays were confirmed on (sic) June 1973. The proceedings u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 were started on 29th June, 1973. In view of the objection petition filed by Ram Singh on 9th July, 1973 it cannot be believed that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not aware of the fact that civil suits regarding the land in dispute were pending in Courts and that the respondents Nos. 3 to 9 were claiming to be in possession of the same. The purpose of section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 is to prevent breach of peace and the ultimate object is to compel the parties to place their dispute before a Civil Court and get proper adjudication of their rights to the immovable property. In a case where the parties have already gone to the Civil Court and the Court has directed the status quo to be maintained, there is no longer any scope for invoking section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898. It is not disputed that the matter involved, both in Civil and criminal litigation between the parties, was identically the same. Under these circumstances the Sub Divisional Magistrate should not have invoked the provisions of 145, Criminal Procedure Code of 1898. As the parties had already gone to the Civil Court, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no longer any duty to perform because there was no danger of breach of peace. The proceedings u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 are, therefore, quashed and the parties are relegated to the position existing on 15th June, 1973.