Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Laxmi Bai Bandhe vs Smt. Basanti Bai 29 Wpc/2406/2010 M/S ... on 29 January, 2018
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 169 of 2018
1. Smt. Laxmi Bai Bandhe W/o Late Shri Ganeshram Bandhe Aged About 53
Years
2. Chaganlal S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged About 31 Years
3. Vikash Kumar Bandhe S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged About 20
Years
Petitioners No.1 to 3 all are R/o Charmudiya ( Railways Station Para )tahsil
And Police Station Kurud District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
4. Smt. Pingla Baghel D/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged About 35
Years
5. Smt. Henendri @ Hema Kosare D/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged
About 33 Years
petitioners No.4 to 5 R/o Village Gatapar Tahsil And Police Station
Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
6. Smt. Neha Bharti D/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged About 29 Years
R/o Village Panduka, Tahsil Chhura, Police Station Panduka, District
Gariyaband Chhattisgarh
7. Ku. Chandani D/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged About 23 Years R/o
Charmudiya ( Railways Station Para )tahsil And Police Station Kurud District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, At present R/o Smt. Pingla Baghel Village Gatapar
Tahsil/Police Station Abhanpur, District-Raipur (C.G.)
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Basanti Bai D/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged About 57 Years
2. Bhupendra Kumar Bandhe S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged About
44 Years
3. Bhagendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged about 36
years,
4. Girendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged about 33 years
5. Avinash S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe Aged about 30 years
Respondents No.1 to 5 all R/o Charmudiya (Railway Station Para)
Tahsil/Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2
6. Smt. Kenendri Gaykwad D/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe W/o Shri Laxmikant Gayakwad, Aged about 43 years, R/o Baroda, Tahsil & District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
7. Smt. Alpi Koshle D/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe W/o Shri Yuvraj Kosale, Aged about 41 years, Through At Present R/o Chhachanpari, Police Station And Tahsil Abhanpur District Raipur
8. Smt. Jajeshwari Nawrange, Aged about 30 years, D/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Bandhe W/o Shri Mukesh Nawrange, Through At Present R/o Atal Awas Q. No. 299 Village Belbhatha, Police Station And Tahsil Abhanpur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District
9. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer, Abhanpur P. S. Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.)
---- Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 29/01/2018
1. Heard.
2. The instant petition is against the order of the revisional Court, Dhamtari dated 05.12.2017, whereby the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kurud, dated 23.01.2017 has been affirmed. By such order the SDM has directed to handover the seized crop in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.58 admeasuring 1.75 Hectares to Smt. Basant Bai.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in respect of the land in question, one will is existing in favour of the petitioners, therefore, the respondents do not have any right over the property and the civil rights are being infringed. He would further submit that one civil suit is pending in between the parties and the order which is interfered, the civil rights of the parties void ab initio, therefore, needs interference and required to be 3 quashed.
4. I have perused the order dated 05.12.2017. Perusal of the order would show that the Court of SDM has given a finding that the disputed land was in possession of the respondent Basanti Bai. In view of this, seized crop and the possession was directed to be handedover to Basanti Bai. If the petitioners are claiming their right through the will then the same can be established before the civil court and the Court below while exercising the power under Section 145 (4) of the Cr.P.C. is confined to the fact of possession only. Since the possession has been found to be in favour of Smt. Basanti Bai/respondent, which has also been affirmed by the revisional Court, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as prima facie no jurisdictional error appears to have been committed by the Court below.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu