Punjab-Haryana High Court
Geetinder Garewal vs Shubhinder Singh And Another on 12 December, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No.M-17930 of 2006 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-17930 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 12, 2013
Geetinder Garewal ...... Petitioner
Versus
Shubhinder Singh and another ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Rakhra, Advocate for the respondents.
---
RITU BAHRI. J.
Challenge is to judgment dated 16.03.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby the order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridkot was set aside.
Vide order dated 31.03.2005, the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the order under Sections 145 Cr.P.C. and directed the Tehsildar, Muktsar to deliver the possession of land in dispute to Geetinder Garewal.
Late Satinderjit Singh father of the petitioner and respondent was owner in possession of the land. As stated in paragraph 6 of the order (Annexure P-6), he died on 10.08.1997. Geetinder Garewal came in possession of the land. The petitioner initiated the proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. for apprehension of breach of peace before the Sub Divisional Rani Sarita 2014.01.08 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-17930 of 2006 (O&M) -2- Magistrate. Vide order dated 07.10.1997, the learned Magistrate appointed the Tehsildar as receiver of the said land. A revision was filed against that order, which was dismissed on 06.11.1997 and the case was remanded back for fresh decision. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.01.1999, after recording the evidence of both the parties, the receiver was directed to hand over the property in favour of the respondents as they were found to be in possession. Thereafter, present petition was filed against the order passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 07.02.2003 dismissing the revision and the case was remanded back for fresh decision. Subsequently, vide order dated 31.03.2005, the SDM, Faridkot decided the case in favour of the petitioner and the direction was given to the respondent to hand over the land to the petitioner. Vide order Annexure P-9, the possession was given to the present petitioner on 15.07.2005. The respondent filed revision against this order which was finally disposed of vide impugned order, which has now been challenged by the petitioner. It was observed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fridkot that there was no apprehension of breach of peace as the respondent was established in possession over the suit land. There is no initiated proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C., since the civil litigation with regard to the land pending before the parties. However, in the last paragraph of the order, it has been observed that Tejinder Singh had given possession of the suit land to the petitioner, Geetinder Garewal, despite the special order passed by the revisional court on 27.07.2005.
Rani Sarita 2014.01.08 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-17930 of 2006 (O&M) -3-
The petitioner challenged this order by way of this criminal revision and while issuing notice of motion on 27.03.2006, operation of this order was stayed.
Counsel for the petitioner has further informed that the civil suit with regard to probate of Will has been decided in her favour by the learned Civil Judge on 08.05.2012. The appeal has been filed against this judgment and as an interim major the funds of Major Satinderjit Singh has been transferred in the name of the petitioner. This is the interim possession as per the order.
He has further argued that all the witnesses purchased by Satinderjit Singh, have specifically stated that the land was in their possession.
Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued while passing the order dated 16.03.2006, the Addl. Sessions Judge has given a finding that respondents were in possession over the suil land. However, Tejinder Singh in defines of the order dated 26.07.2005 give possession to the present petitioner. Even moreover, as per Annexure P-5, the possession of the land had been given to the petitioner vide order dated 31.03.2005.
He has further argued that as per paragraph 14 of the order dated 16.03.2006, it has been observed by the Addl. Sessions Judge that all the witnesses have been purchased by the respondent i.e. Sarpanch, Nambardar, Panch etc. After going through the order, it transpires that the persons, who deposed in favour of the respondent were the tenant of the land. Rani Sarita 2014.01.08 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-17930 of 2006 (O&M) -4- The father, who was cultivating the land and other witnesses only supported the version of the respondent that after the death of their father they were in possession. The finding recorded in the order that despite the special order granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot has given possession to Geetinder Garewal, which has not been challenged by the respondent. As per Annexure P-9, Rojnamcha dated 15.07.2005, Tejinder Singh had given possession to the petitioner of the land in dispute. Since the factual aspect that the respondents have not challenged the impugned order with regard to the finding that possession was given by Tejinder Singh to the petitioner. At this stage, in view of the judgment passed by the Civil Judge, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
However, the parties can avail the remedies as per law.
(RITU BAHRI)
December 12, 2013 JUDGE
sarita
Rani Sarita
2014.01.08 14:04
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh