Satyavir Singh vs State of Haryana and ors.

J. B. Garg, J.

Briefly the facts as alleged are that Rajiv Lamba son of Raghbir Singh, resident of Daulatpur, made an application against Smt. Raj Kaur (and five other respondents) that she has unlawfully transferred a piece of land, measuring 3 kanals, which is a part of the total land on lease for a period of 99 years by a registered lease deed on 1851989 and that it was without determining the share of the coowners. It was on 2291989, Mr. Shiv Singh, ASI of Police Station Sadar Hissar, initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on 2831990 the land in question was attached under order of Shri N. C. Wadhwa, SubDivisional Magistrate, Hissar, under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The aforesaid proceedings have been assailed and it has been alleged that Raghbir Singh was owner of the land to the extent of 3/4 and Raj Kaur to the extent of 14; that on 2831984 Raghbir Singh had sold his share me asuring 2 kanals 17 marlas and in the sale deed it was specifically mentioned that there had been a partition. It has further been alleged that on 1141984 Raghbir Singh sold another piece of land, measuring 3 kanals 12 marlas to one Dinesh Kumar, wherein also there is a mention that there had been a partition of the land. It has also been alleged that Raghbir Singh instituted a Civil Suit No. 418C of 1989 challenging the aforesaid lease for a period of 94 years executed by Smt. Raj Kaur. It has been pointed out that when Raghbir Singh has admittedly sold his 3/4th share, there was no bar for Shrimati Raj Kaur to deal with her residual 1/4th share in the manner she liked; that the proceedings in Civil Court are already pending inter se the parties and interference of the police or the executive authority was not called for in the circumstances of the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since Raghbir Singh had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Smt. Raj Kaur and others on 1381989, there was no justification for issuing the impugned order of attachment dated 2131990 and it cannot be justified. The learned counsel for the respondents has tried to rely upon the reports of the local commissioners dated 1881989 and dated 13101989. These reports are yet to be scrutinised in the civil suit pending inter se the parties and do not ipso facto support the contention of the respondents that the petitioners are trespassers ab initio. This would show that the alleged lessees may be in possession and the conclusion is that there is no justification for the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate attaching the property in question inasmuch as there was no bar for Smt. Raj Kaur, who too a was cosharer, to deal with the; residual piece of land in the manner she considered appropriate. The petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 2831990 is hereby set aside. This also disposes of Crl. Misc. No. 5978 M of 1990.