Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravel Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 4 August, 2016
Author: Hari Pal Verma
Bench: Hari Pal Verma
Criminal Misc. No. M-34649 of 2012 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-34649 of 2012 (O & M)
Date of Decision:-04.08.2016
Ravel Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA Present:- Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Kler, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.S. Pannu, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2.
HARI PAL VERMA J.
Petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 27.9.2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon in Rapat No.16 dated 12.6.2012, under Section 145 Cr.P.C. registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana in case titled 'State vs. Ravel Singh and others'.
Vide aforesaid order the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon had appointed the Naib Tehsildar as Receiver of the land in dispute while invoking Section 146 Cr.P.C., till the final conclusion of the case.
As per the calendara submitted under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 06:16:45 ::: Criminal Misc. No. M-34649 of 2012 (O & M) -2- the SHO, P.S. Sidhwan Bet, the land measuring 15 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in village Bhaini Gujjran was purchased by Balbir Singh son of Bant Singh, resident of Kotmana, Tehsil Jagraon from Sachdev Singh son of Surjit Singh, resident of Village Gill, Tehsil and District Ludhiana vide registered sale deed dated 4.11.2004. The land is being cultivated by Balbir Singh-respondent No.2. But the petitioner in connivance with his family members is trying to take forcible possession of the land and is trying to restrain respondent No.2 from cultivating his land. Accordingly, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has concluded that as per jamabandi for the year 2007-08, Khasra No.1//14,6 15,16,17 out of total land measuring 39 Kanals 4 Marlas situated in Village Bhaini Gujjran, land measuring 15 Kanals 12 Marlas has been purchased by Balbir Singh-respondent No.2 from Sachdev Singh vide sale deed dated 4.11.2004 and the possession of the land in dispute had been handed over to respondent No.2 which comprised Khasra No.16 and 17. Being in the column of Mustarka, the petitioner is trying to take forcible possession of the land and is not allowing respondent No.2 to cultivate the same. Thus, observing that both the parties are claiming their possession on the land in dispute and there is an apprehension of a dispute between the parties at any point of time, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had appointed Naib Tehsildar as Receiver of land under Section 146 Cr.P.C. till the final conclusion of the case. The Receiver was directed to take immediate possession of the land in dispute in accordance with law.
The petitioner has impugned the aforesaid order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Sub 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 06:16:46 ::: Criminal Misc. No. M-34649 of 2012 (O & M) -3- Divisional Magistrate while appointing the Naib Tehsildar as Receiver, has not given due consideration to the fact that earlier also there was a dispute between the parties over the same land and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner. But those proceedings were dropped after proper inquiry dated 27.2.2012 holding the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. Accordingly, respondent No.2 was directed to take recourse of Civil Court. He further argued that the finding of learned SDM that as per jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 out of total land measuring 31 Kanal 4 Marla, land measuring 15 Kanals 12 Marlas had been purchased by respondent No.2 from Sachdev Singh vide sale deed dated 4.11.2004 and the land being in column Mustarka, said finding is erroneous and illegal. He contends that the petitioner has never executed the alleged sale deed dated 8.1.2003 in favour of Sachdev Singh.
Reply on behalf of respondent No.2-Balbir Singh was filed, wherein it has been stated that respondent No.2 had purchased the land measuring 15 Kanal 12 Marlas from Sachdev Singh son of Surjit Singh vide registered sale deed dated 4.11.2004 and he was cultivating this land. It is the petitioner who is trying to take forcible possession of the land in dispute. As both the parties have the dispute regarding ownership and possession over the suit land, so, the SDM, Jagraon has assessed the apprehension of law and order situation and, accordingly initiated the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.. The SDM, Jagraon vide order dated 27.2.2012 consigned the proceedings with direction to respondent No.2 to approach the Civil Court and proceedings under Section 145 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 06:16:46 ::: Criminal Misc. No. M-34649 of 2012 (O & M) -4- Cr.P.C. were ordered to be filed. However, when both the parties have claimed their possession over the land in dispute and there was an apprehension of law and order situation, vide order dated 27.9.2012 again proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated and the Naib Tehsildar was appointed as Receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed the reply. On the strength of reply he has argued that respondent No.2 had purchased 15 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land from Sachdev Singh in the year 2004 and the land qua which the petitioner is raising the dispute, is in the peaceful and cultivating possession of respondent No.2. Even Intkal of the said land was sanctioned/mutated, which is decipherable from the latest jamabandi for the year 2012-2013. He further stated that the petitioner has filed a civil suit titled 'Ravel Singh vs. Sachdev Singh and others', but the same was dismissed. A certified copy of the order dated 18.9.2014 has been produced in the Court, which is taken on record.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and the petitioner under the garb of purchase of suit land, is depriving respondent No.2 from his legitimate right over the suit property. Even the suit filed by the petitioner had already been dismissed vide order dated 18.9.2014. The said suit was in the nature of declaration that petitioner is in possession of total land 31 Kanals 4 Marlas and respondent No.2 is not the owner of one half share of the suit land. Once the revenue record depicts that respondent No.2 as owner of the land in dispute and 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 06:16:46 ::: Criminal Misc. No. M-34649 of 2012 (O & M) -5- mutation has been sanctioned in his favour, coupled with the fact that the suit has been dismissed, filing of the present petition is nothing but an attempt to deprive respondent No.2 of his legitimate claim regarding possession over the suit land.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that any expression made herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion in any other proceedings, if any, pending between the parties.
August 04, 2016 ( HARI PAL VERMA )
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 06:16:46 :::