Roor Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of impugned order dated 30.1.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar and the impugned order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. have been initiated and are decided in favour of respondent No. 2 in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The brief facts, as noticed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, read as under:

The brief facts as made out from the pleadings/documents relied upon are that one Bahadur Singh, grandfather of respondent Gurpartap Singh was the owner of the land measuring 20 acres which was declared as surplus and was acquired by the Government in the year 1964, out of which 10 acres of land was allotted to Tarlok Singh and 10 acres was allotted to Roor Singh, the present revisionists. Thereafter, the litigation remained pending up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. Lastly the case was put up for hearing in the court of Shri Parveen Kumar, PCS, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Amritsar and he modified the order by reducing the allotment in favour of Tarlok Singh and Roor Singh to the extent of 5 acres each while the remaining 10 acres of land was ordered to be reversed to the Government. The possession of the land which was reversed to the Government was further ordered to be delivered to respondent Gurpartap Singh etc. in the light of the said order, the respondent approached the revenue authorities that the wheat crop is sown by the revisionists and its possession be delivered after assessing its compensation/price of the crop. The revenue authorities assessed the compensation which was deposited by the respondents in the Treasury and the symbolic possession of the land was delivered to the respondent on 3.2.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionists approached the higher revenue authority (i.e. Financial Commissioner), who vide order dated 5.4.2006 stopped their dispossession from the disputed property and it has also been brought to my notice during the course of agreements that the said order stands vacated by dismissing the revision in this year. The acts further reveal that after obtaining the symbolic possession the respondents approached the concerned police station that the revisionists are resisting to deliver the possession and are not harvesting the crop, proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. be initiated. On the basis of the application filed by the respondent, copy of which is not on the judicial file, one DDR No. 18 dated 9.5.2006 was lodged and on its basis, the SHO of the concerned police station prepared the Calendra and presented the same before the lower court for initiating the proceedings and to restrain both the parties not to enter the disputed land. The lower court initiated the proceedings and appointed the receiver who harvested the wheat crop and the price after selling it in the open auction, was deposited in the Treasury.

Earlier against the order of the SDM, Amritsar-I dated 6.9.2007 the revision was preferred which was allowed and the case was remanded back with the direction to ascertain/determine which of the party was in possession two months prior to the initiating of proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. The learned lower court after appreciating the facts, evidence and factual possession of the landed property again passed the impugned order vide which the revisionists were directed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the respondents. Aggrieved with the impugned order the revisionists have preferred the present revision.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the civil litigation was pending between the parties and hence, Sub Divisional Magistrate could not initiate proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the petitioners had failed to establish their possession before the Civil Court and hence, the application filed by them seeking ad interim injunction was dismissed. Respondent No. 2 had been successful in establishing his possession over the property in dispute and hence, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had rightly ordered that the possession of the land in dispute be delivered to respondent No. 2.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.

Admittedly, the petitioners had failed to establish their possession before the Civil Court and consequently, the application filed by them for ad interim injunction was dismissed. Since respondent No. 2 had been successful in establishing his possession, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate rightly directed the Receiver to deliver the possession of the land in dispute to respondent No. 2. The revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P-8). Learned Counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any miscarriage of justice which would warrant interference by this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Hence, this petition is dismissed.