Allahabad High Court
Mahant Dharmendra Das vs State Of U.P. Through S.D.M. Bakshi Ka ... on 5 May, 2022
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Reserved on 8.2.2022 Delivered on -5.5.2022 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 627 of 2020 Applicant :- Mahant Dharmendra Das Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through S.D.M. Bakshi Ka Talab Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohiuddin Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nadeem Murtaza,Rupendra Kumar Singh,Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rupendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No. 674 of 2019(Bharat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow in case no. 10190 of 2019 (Computerized No. T201910460410190) (Dharmendra Das Vs. Bharat Singh).
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that land bearing Gata No. 259 area 6.7660 hectare, Khasra No. 333 area 1.1320 hectare and Khasra No. 406 Ga area 0.9780 hectare situated in village- Aldampur, P.S. Itaunja District- Luknow originally belongs to Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust, Udaseen Sangat, Guruduwara, Nanak Shahi, Purani Sabji Mandi Chowk Lucknow ( hereinafter referred to as "Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust") and the opposite party no. 2 is claiming to have purchased the disputed land from Shri Mahant Bharat Das through sale deed dated 17.7.2006.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to lack of management of the properties situated at village-Adlampur by Shri Mahant Sabzi Mandi Chowk, Lucknow and taking advantage of such problems the opposite party no. 2 produced Baba Ram Bhajan Das as Chela of Late Mahant Ganga Das Ji and got his name recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter opposite party no. 2 is claiming to have purchased the land bearing Gata No. 259, ad-measuring 6.7660 from Shri Mahant Bharat Dass, Chela of Mahant Baba Ramji Dass through sale deed dated 17.7.2006 and purchased the property in the name of Anmol Gramudyog Sansthan, Awadh Poultry Farm, Faridi Nagar, Lucknow. Opposite party no. 2 is also claiming that his mother and wife had jointly purchased the land bearing Gata No. 333 ad-measuring 1.1320 hectare and Gata No. 406 Ga ad-measuring 0.978 hectare through sale deed dated 18.9.2006.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that sale deed dated 17.7.2006 and 18.9.20006 are void ab-initio in view of the provisions contained in Section 36 and 37 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and executor of both the sale deed namely Mahant Bharat Dass was not appointed/authorized as Mahant of Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust. Hence he was having no authority to execute the alleged sale deeds. He further submitted that Mahant Parmeshwar Das had resigned and made a declaration through registered sale deed dated 7.2.2011 appointing the applicant as Mahant and Sarvakar of the Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust. A photo copy of the sale deed dated 7.2.20211 is being annexed as Annexure 3 to the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant having been appointed as Mahant and regarding this Mahajjarnama was also executed which was registered on 19.10.2012 recognizing the applicant as Mahant appointed on the vacant post of the Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust. The petitioner has been handed over possession over the land in question on 13.12.2018 and 17.12.2018. On the spot, the constructed building, Puja Sthan, Kothan, Snan Kund etc are situated and the opposite party no. 2 through muscle power wants to disturb the possession of the petitioner regarding which F.I.R. has been lodged at Police Station- Itaunja, District- Lucknow and report was submitted on 17.9.2019 and on the basis of the said report, case no. 10190 of 2019 ( Mahant Dharmendra Das Vs. Bharat Singh) was registered and notice was issued to the opposite parties. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab vide his order dated 18.10.2019 has attached the property in dispute under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. and appointed Shri Atul Kumar Shukla, Gram Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Aldampur as receiver on 25.10.2019. The petitioner has filed his detailed objection on 9.10.2019 but same has not been considered by S.D.M., Bakshi Ka Talab (opposite party no. 1.)
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that opposite party no. 2 is regularly trying to take over forcible possession over the disputed land and in this regard, the appointed receiver namely Shri Atul Kumar Shukla, Gram Pradhan has moved a complaint dated 30.10.2019 before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab for issuing necessary directions to the police of Police Station- Itaunja. The opposite party no. 2 when could not succeed in obtaining forcible possession over the disputed land has filed criminal revision no. 674 of 2019 on 1.11.2019. The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Lucknow vide his impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2019 has allowed the revision thereby setting aside the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by opposite party no. 1- the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow. On the basis of that Civil Judge Hawali (Junior Division), Lucknow in Suit No. 544 of 2009 by the judgment and order dated 6.8.2010 decreed the suit in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and decree was passed restraining the erstwhile respondent in suit permanently not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the applicant.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that decree passed in Suit No. 544 of 2009 was obtained against Parmeshwar Das and Rajendra Singh. The applicant was not party of above suit and thus, the opposite party no. 2 has obtained decree against wrong person hence the same is not enforceable against the applicant according to law. The opposite party no. 2 is trying to take possession of the disputed land. Therefore, the petitioner has filed application dated 21.12.2019 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab for recording the name of Thakur Ji Maharaj in revenue record over the land in dispute and stopping the opposite party no. 2 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner but till date no action has been taken in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that opposite party no. 2 and Bharat Das @ Ram Newaj Singh are trying to alienate the properties of the trust. The claim of the opposite party no. 2 over the land of the Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust on the basis of the sale deed executed by Bharat Das @ Ram Newaj Singh without obtaining the permission from the competent court is liable to be rejected. Since the property in question belongs to Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust , the applicant- Mahant Dharmendra Das is entitled to get the possession of the property.
9. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the instant petition be allowed with costs by setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Ramabai Govind Vs. Raghunath Vasudeo AIR 1952 Bombay 106, judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Misrilal Raidani Vs. Netaichand Nandi AIR 1934 Calcutta 372 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhinka and others Vs. Charan Singh AIR 1959 SC 960.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that at the very outset it is pertinent to submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed in limine, as the order under challenge in the instant petition is reviseable. He further submitted that the applicant approached this Court by filing of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent powers of this Hon'ble Court, in absolute disregard to the alternative and efficacious remedy available to him. The opposite party no. 2 had purchased the property in question bearing Khasra No. 260, Gata No. 259 admeasuring 6.7660 hectare jointly with his father-in-law, namely, Shri Ramji Singh from the then recorded tenure holder Shri Mahant Bharat Das, chela of Mahant Baba Ramji Dass for sale consideration of Rs. 10,40,000/- by registered sale deed dated 17.7.2006. The land bearing Gata No. 333 admeasuring 1.1320 hectare and Gata No. 406-Ga admeasuring 0.978 hectare were purchased jointly by mother of the opposite party no. 2 namely, Smt. Kalawati Singh and the wife of the opposite party no. 2, namely, Madhu Singh vide sale deed dated 18.9.2006. Thus, the opposite party no. 2 is bonafide purchaser of the aforesaid property and has got absolutely no concern with the dispute between the seller of the aforesaid property i.e. Shri Mahant Bharat Dass and his rivals including the applicant herein. He further submitted that Mahant Ramji Dass was the undisputed chela of Mahant Shri Atma Dass Ji and Mahant Ramji Dass had in his lifetime clarified that he has only two disciples, namely, Baba Dayal and Baba Bharat Dass (who was appointed as Mahant Sarvakar after demise of Mahant Baba Ramji Dass). Baba Parmeshwar Das, who has absolutely no concern with the Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust, claimed successor of Mahant Baba Ramji Dass. The applicant claimed his title over property of the Thakur Ji Maharaj Trust through aforesaid Baba Shri Parmeshwar Dass. Baba Bharat Dass was duly recorded as successor of Mahant Baba Ram Ji Dass and name of Baba Bharat Dass was also recorded in the revenue record.
11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that Mahant Parmeshwar Dass challenged the succession certificate granted to Mahant Baba Bharat Dass, however, the same was withdrawn by Mahant Parmeshwar Dass and acknowledged that Mahant Baba Bharat Dass is the rightful successor of Mahant Baba Ram Ji Dass. On 5.2.2011 Mahant Parmeshwar Dass, who himself had no title over the aforesaid properties, had declared the applicant to be his successor. However, the declaration letter was revoked by Mahant Parmeshwar Dass on 7.9.2012. Copy of the aforesaid declaration letter dated 5.2.2011 and 7.9.2012 are collectively annexed as Annexure C.A.-3 with counter affidavit. Thus, the petitioner has no right to interfere in the property belonging to the opposite party no. 2.
12. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Hawali (Junior Division), Lucknow for permanent injunction against Arvind Kumar Singh and Baba Shri Parmeshwar Dass (allegedly guru of the applicant), which is registered as Original Suit No. 544 of 2009 wherein the court restraining the applicant to interfere in the peaceful possession of the opposite party no. 2. The injunction suit is binding on Parmeshwar Dass Ji as well against his legal representative. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also submitted that some of the Khasra No. 259 has been kept in mortgage by the opposite party no. 2 in the name of Gramin Bank of Aryawart. The wife of the opposite party no. 2 is also running a milk production dairy under the Kamdhenu Shceme on the part of the aforesaid land from several years after constructing the requisite built area. Copies of the revenue records are collectively annexed as Annexure C.A.-8 with counter affidavit. It is fully established that the opposite party no. 2 has peaceful possession over the land of Village-Aldampur, Tehsil-Bakshi Ka Talab, District- Lucknow.
13. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submitted that the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated with malafide intention and notice was issued under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 presented a detailed written statement and also brought on record judgment and order dated 6.8.2010 passed in O.S. No. 544 of 2009 by which the title of the opposite party no. 2 has been confirmed and decree of permanent injunction has been passed in favour of the opposite party no. 2 but the Sub Divisional Magistrate without application of judicial mind passed the order of attachment on 18.10.2019. It is also submitted that the land bearing Gata No. 333, which has already been sold by the wife of the opposite party no. 2 to the M/s. Fortune Realtors, who has not been made party to the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2019 the opposite party no. 2 preferred criminal revision no. 674 of 2019 and Criminal Revision Court vide order dated 13.12.2019 after hearing both the parties allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner had got the interim order dated 10.2.2020 from this Court by suppressing the material facts.
14. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently submitted that it is no more a rest-integra that the purpose of the provision of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is to prevent a breach of peace at the instance of the parties who should, like law abiding citizens, place their disputes before a civil court and not take law into their own hands. The provision of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is intended only as a stop-gap arrangement, till the rights are not properly adjudicated by the civil court. Thus, the order of attachment can be passed if it is considered that the case is one of emergency but in the present case the opposite party no. 2 had settled that he has title over the above land and he was in peaceful possession after getting sale deed executed in his favour and permanent injunction was awarded in favour of the opposite party no. 2. The land in question rightly owned and possessed by the opposite party no. 2, therefore, the present application filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is nothing but abuse of the process of law and thus, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 prayed to dismiss the present petition and vacate the interim protection passed by this Court. In support of his submission learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 reliedupon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 3007-3008 of 2017 (Prabhakar Adiga Vs. Gowri and others) and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and others; AIR 1985 SC 47.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the main prayer of the applicant is to set aside the judgment and order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Lucknow and also prayed to quash the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow.
16. The main prayer of learned counsel for the applicant is that the possession over the disputed land in question was handed over on 13.12.2018 but the opposite party no. 2 through muscles power wanted to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner regarding which the petitioner lodged the F.I.R. against the opposite party no. 2. It is also submitted that it is the trust property. The trustee has no right to sell the trust property unless the deed of trust confers such a power. There is no such express power conferred by the Trust Act upon the trustee. Merely because the property is vested in the trustee, the trustee is not entitled to sell the same. He is not the full owner of the property in the real sense of the term, because there is beneficial interest and the ownership therein carved out in the property. The legal ownership which vests in the trustee is for the purpose of the trust and administration of the trust. Therefore, the petitioner submitted before the Court that no legal title accrue in favour of the opposite party no. 2.
17. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted before the Court that he had purchased the property in question from the then recorded tenure holder Shri Mahant Bharat Das for sale consideration of Rs. 10,40,000/- by registered sale deed dated 17.7.2006. Another Gata bearing No. 406-Ga admeasuring 0.978 hectare and the land bearing Gata No. 333 admeasuring 1.1320 hectare were purchased jointly by mother of the opposite party no. 2 and the wife of the opposite party no. 2 by the sale deed executed on 18.9.2006. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submitted that till then the alleged property was in possession of the opposite party no. 2 and his family members. The name of the opposite party no. 2 and other family members were also recorded in revenue records. Till then after execution of the sale deed in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and his family members, they peacefully possessed the land but the applicant wanted to grab the property therefore, on behest of the applicants, proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was started by Sub Divisional Magistrate.
18. I have heard both the parties at length and perused the record.
19. The provisions of Section 145 (1) and 145 (2) Cr.P.C. and Section 146 Cr.P.C. are quoted herein below:
"145. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. (1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression" land or water" includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.
............
"146 . Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver.
(1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub- section (1) of section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in section 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof: Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute."
20. The object of the section 145 Cr.P.C. is to bring to an end by a summary process disputes relating to property, which are essentially of a civil nature, with a view to prevent breach of peace. Orders under the section are mere police orders which do not concern question of title. The section is primarily meant for the prevention of breach of peace where the dispute relates to the possession of immovable property, and to provide a speedy remedy by bringing the parties before the Court and ascertaining who of them was in actual possession and to maintain status quo until their rights are determined by a competent Court. Enquiry under this section is limited to the question as to who was in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order irrespective of the rights of the parties and the S.D.M. can not determine right and title of the properties. Due to this, preliminary order was passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Notice was also issued and order was passed under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. for attachment of the property.
21. Being aggrieved with this order of the learned Magistrate for attachment of alleged property the opposite party no. 2 preferred the revision and the revision was allowed by impugned judgment of the Sessions Court.
22. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 contended that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature, even if the rights of the parties are disputed before the competent civil court, and right of any party is protected by the court through interim injunction then the aggrieved party should place its grievance before the competent civil court and summary proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. Since the permanent injunction in favour of the opposite party no. 2 was passed vide order dated 6.8.2010 passed by Civil Judge Hawali (Junior Division), Lucknow in Suit No. 544 of 2009 (Bharat Singh and others Vs. Arvind Singh and Parmeshwar Das. The suit was decreed in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and decree was passed restraining the erstwhile respondent (legal representative of applicant) permanently not to interfere in the possession of the opposite party no. 2. The decree for permanent injunction, which is passed in favour of the opposite party no. 2, is binding even against the legal representative of the opposite party no. 2 of Original Suit No. 544 of 2009. The record indicates that the applicant failed to indicate that any appeal filed against the order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Hawali. Since title is in favour of the opposite party no. 2 is well settled, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he was not party of the original suit no. 544 of 2009, so the decree is not binding upon him have no force. The decree for permanent injunction shall be enforceable even against the legal representative. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to show any suit for cancellation of sale deed which was executed in favour of opposite party no. 2 and his family members.
23. In support of his submission learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. and others; AIR 1985 SC 472 in which it has been held that:-
When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, we see hardly any justification for initiating a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no scope to doubt or dispute the position that the decree of the Civil Court is binding on the criminal court in a matter like the one before us. Counsel for respondents 2-5 was not in a position to challenge the proposition that parallel proceeding should not be permitted to continue and in the event of a decree of the Civil Court, the criminal court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil court and parties are in a position to approach the civil court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during dependency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation. We are, therefore, satisfied that parallel proceedings should not continue and the order of the learned Magistrate should be quashed. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash the order of the learned Magistrate by which the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been initiated and the property in dispute has been attached.
In support of his submission learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also relied upon judgment dated 27.3.2018 of this Court passed in the case of Ganesh Prasad & 5 others Vs. State of U.P. & 4 others in which it has been held that:-
13. After having heard at length the rival contentions and having perused the record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned SDM should not have drawn the proceedings under section 145 (1) or 146 (1) Cr.P.C., when the matter was pending before competent courts for getting the title over the said land decided as well for seeking injunction. The revisionists-second party have admittedly moved revenue court for getting their ownership/title declared over the disputed property vis-a-vis the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3-first party, while the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3-first party have moved Civil Court for seeking permanent injunction against the revisionists, which proceedings are pending. It is also on record that these proceedings were pending from prior to the initiation of proceedings under section 145 (1) or 146 (1) Cr. P.C., therefore, the learned SDM ought to have shunned entertaining any application for such relief. It is also apparent from evidence on record that no emergent situation has been shown to exist which compelled the learned SDM to attach the property in dispute. Not even an iota of evidence is there which would reflect that there was any kind of emergency of compelling nature for the SDM to pass an order for attachment of the disputed property. It would be pertinent to refer to the position of law to substantiate the decision of this Court.
14. The reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist-second party upon (2002) 3 SCC 700, Ranbir Singh vs Dalbir Singh and others, wherein the order of the High Court setting aside the order passed by SDM under section section 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr. P.C., was upheld holding that while dealing with a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C., the Court has to be concerned only with possession of the property in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date. The Court is not required to decide either title to the property or rights of possession of the same. It was also found by the Apex Court that both the parties had filed suits seeking decree of permanent injunction against each other and in suit filed by the appellant, an order of interim injunction had been passed and an objection had been filed by the respondent No. 1, in such a situation there was no need for the SDM to draw proceedings under section 145 (1) and 146 (1) Cr.P.C., it was nothing but an abuse of process of Court. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
"8 . However, the High Court was in error in dealing with the Revision Petition as if it was exercising appellate jurisdiction. The High Court has dealt with the developments in the case relating to the acquisition of title, the allegations of fraudulent transfers made by Karnail Singh and M/s. Homestead and the circumstances in which the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Keeping in view the limited scope of the proceeding under section 145, Cr. P.C. these questions were not material for determination of the main issues in the case. The Court, while dealing with a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C., is mainly concerned with possession of the property in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within 2 months prior to that date; the Court is not required to decide either title to the property or rights of possession of the same. The question for determination before the High Court in the present case was one relating to the validity or otherwise of the preliminary order passed by the learned Sub - Divisional Magistrate under section 145 (1) Cr. P.C. and sustainability of the order of attachment passed under section 146 (1) Cr. P.C.. For deciding the questions it was neither necessary nor relevant for the High Court to have considered the matter relating to title to and right of possession of the property. Further, both the parties in the case have filed suits seeking decree of permanent injunction against each other and in the suit filed by the appellant an order of interim injunction has been passed and an objection petition has been filed by respondent No. 1. The suits and the interim order are pending further consideration before the Civil Court. "
24. In view of the above facts and circumstances and after considering the above cited law, it appears that opposite party no. 2 possessed the peaceful possession over the disputed land since 2006 and presently the legal title of the above land in question is in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and which is never disturbed by any civil court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge/revisional court had rightly found that the title as well as possession over the land in question is already settled in favour of the opposite party no. 2 ( Bharat Singh). Thus, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and there appears no incorrectness, impropriety or illegality in passing the impugned order, so on the basis of the above discussion findings of the Revisional Court dated 13.12.2019 in passing of the impugned order appears to be justified and proper. Thus, in my considered opinion that the present application filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and not maintainable, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
25. Interim protection granted earlier shall be vacated forthwith.
26. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.5.2022 Anuj Singh