Delhi District Court
Ravi Nagar Ors vs State Ors on 19 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLET01-002070-2021
CR No. 29/2021
Sh. Ravi Nagar
S/o Sh. Selak Nagar
R/o H. No. 120, Khasra No. 310/1
Khichripur Main Road
Delhi-110091 ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of NCT of Delhi
Through Executive Magistrate
(Mayur Vihar) East District
L. M. Bandh Road, Shastri Nagar
Delhi-110031
2. Sh. Brahm Prakash
S/o Late Ratan Lal
R/o H. No. S-138-A
Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092 ...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.03.2021
Date of reserving Order : 01.02.2025
Date of pronouncement : 19.03.2025
ORDER
1. By way of the present revision petition under Section 397/ 399 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), Sh. Ravi Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') has assailed the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 passed by Ld. Executive Magistrate, Mayur Vihar under Section 145 Cr.P.C. vide which it was held that possession of property in question i.e. land admeasuring 250 Sq.
Digitally signedAKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. JAIN 2025.03.20 Page No. 1 of 13 17:25:58 +0530 yards (Khasra No. 310 or 317) at Village Khichripur, near City Prince Public School, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'subject property') was with Sh. Brahm Prakash (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no. 2') as on the date of dispute i.e. 16.05.2018.
2. Briefly stated, a kalandara under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was registered by Police Station Kalyan Puri on 16.05.2018 vide DD No. 47A. It was reported in the said kalandara that both petitioner and respondent no. 2 were raising dispute in respect of subject property which is a vacant piece of land. It was further reported that both the parties were staking their respective claim and ownership over the said property. While, petitioner claimed that the subject property falls within Khasra No. 310, respondent no. 2 claimed that the property in question falls within Khasra No.
317. Both the parties had filed separate cases qua subject property in the Court and had history of litigation as well as conflict in the past. It was further reported that the respondent no. 2 had installed 8 tin sheds along with 8 iron rods at the subject property which were removed by the police and seized. Apprehending the possibility of breach of peace due to abovesaid dispute between both the parties, the police officials registered the kalandara in question and forwarded it to Ld. Executive Magistrate, Mayur Vihar.
3. On receipt of the said kalandara, a notice dated 28.05.2018 was issued to both the parties by then SDM to appear on 05.06.2018 along with their claims with regard to possession over disputed land. Both the parties later on appeared through AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.03.20 17:26:04 +0530 CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. Page No. 2 of 13 their Counsels before Ld. Executive Magistrate and furnished their respective written submissions during the course of proceedings. Vide order dated 11.02.2021, based on the submissions made and documents supplied by the parties, Ld. Executive Magistrate proceeded to hold that possession of subject property i.e. land admeasuring 250 Sq. yards (Khasra No. 310 or
317) at Village Khichripur, Delhi was with respondent no. 2 as on 16.05.2018. The relevant excerpts of the order are reproduced as under for ready reference:-
".... Whereas, in view of the facts mentioned above, I am of the considered view that-
1. The IInd party was appeared to be in possession of the land in question as evident from the Decree passed in Civil Suit No. 816/07/03 (New Case no. 7675/16) by the Hon'ble Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi by restraining DDA from dispossessing this Party from the land.
2. The Ist party was failed to prove his possession in Civil Suit No. 176/2010 (New CS No. 8639/2016) titled as "Hari Ram vs. DDA and Sh. Vijender etc." as well as in Review Petition bearing CS No. 8639/2016 in The Hon'ble Court of Sh. Jay Thareja, JSCC/ ASCJ/ GJ (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Moreover in the written submission dated 24.07.2018 filed by the Sh. Ravi Nagar (1 st Party), it has been mentioned at Para 8 that "whereas it is Party No. 2 who are in settled possession of property in question".This statement of Ist Party is corroborating the fact that IInd Party was in possession of the land in question at the time of dispute.
3. On the date of present dispute, there were 8 tin sheds and 8 iron rods of the 1st Party were reported to available at the disputed land and the police have already admitted to remove and confiscate them from the land in question.
4. Ist party could not submitted any legal evidence regarding possession over the Land in question at the time of dispute. Further the 1 st party has always tried to stretch the case by raising doubts on the integrity of all Officers proceeding the matter, refusing to accept the Notice and delay in filing of written submission etc as already AKASH Digitally AKASH JAIN signed by JAIN Date: 2025.03.20 17:26:09 +0530 CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. Page No. 3 of 13 recorded by the then Officer dealing the earlier proceedings and at present by filing representation to raising the issues already decided earlier.
5. This case was initiated on 28/05/2018 and more than 02 years have been lapsed, and still 1 st party is seeking time despite many opportunities given to them knowing the fact that they had already filed written submission earlier and there is nothing new evidence to file now if proceeding be continue further.
Therefore, I, Vinod Kumar Singh, Executive Magistrate, Mayur Vihar, in exercise of power conferred upon the u/s 145 Cr.P.C., is hereby order that the IInd Party i.e. Shri Brahm Prakash was in possession of the land in question measuring 250 sq. yds. as on the date of dispute i.e. 16 th May, 2018...."
4. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid impugned order, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner on inter alia following grounds:-
(i) That the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 is illegal, unlawful and arbitrary and is further based on conjectures and surmises;
(ii) That Ld. Executive Magistrate failed to appreciate that the decree on the basis of which impugned order was passed was an injunction suit against DDA only where the petitioner or his family members were not made party;
(iii) That Ld. Executive Magistrate failed to appreciate that as per the demarcation report of year 2016 of Revenue Department, the land in question is shown to be an open land falling under Khasra No. 310 of Village Khichripur and not under Khasra No. 317;
(iv) That Ld. Executive Magistrate failed to appreciate that the decree in question was qua Khasra no. 317, Village Khichripur, while the land in question actually falls under Khasra No. 310 which belongs to petitioner.
(v) That Ld. Executive Magistrate failed to appreciate the Digitally signed AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. JAIN 2025.03.20 17:26:13 +0530 Page No. 4 of 13 object of Section 145 Cr.P.C., which is to prevent breach of peace and he completely ignored the fact that petitioner was already in possession of the subject property much prior to dispute arose between both the parties.
5. Reply cum objection was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 to this revision petition, wherein it was averred that the present petition is abuse of process of law and the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 is just, reasonable and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It was averred that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts. It was further averred that the petitioner has no right, title or interest qua subject property.
6. I have heard the arguments and carefully perused the record.
7. Before adverting to rival submissions on behalf of both parties, it is imperative to refer to Section 145 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-
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) **** AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.03.20 17:26:17 +0530 CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. Page No. 5 of 13 (3) **** (4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference of the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub-section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of this order under sub-section (1).
(5) ****
(6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was,
or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.
(b) The order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub-section (3).
(7) ****
(8) ****
(9) ****
(10) ****
8. In the case of R. H. Bhutani v. Miss Mani J. Desai & Ors., 1968 AIR 1444, Hon'ble Supreme Court elucidated the scope AKASH Digitally AKASH JAIN signed by JAIN Date: 2025.03.20 17:26:22 +0530 CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. Page No. 6 of 13 and object of Section 145 i.e. to prevent breach of peace and for that end 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. It was observed that enquiry under Section 145 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. Under the second proviso, the party who is found to have been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next preceding the date of the preliminary order may for the purpose of the enquiry be deemed to have been in possession on the date of that order. The opposite party may of course prove that dispossession took place more than two months next preceding the date of that order and in that case the Magistrate would have to cancel his preliminary order. On the other hand, if he is satisfied that dispossession was both forcible and wrongful and took place within the prescribed period, the party dispossessed would be deemed to be in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order and the Magistrate would then proceed to make his final order directing the dispossessor to restore possession and prohibit him from interfering with that possession until the applicant is evicted in due course of law.
9. In the case of Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh & Ors, AIR 2002 SC 1500, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to hold that while dealing with the proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., the Court is mainly concerned with possession of the property in dispute on the date of preliminary order and AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.03.20 17:26:28 +0530 CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. Page No. 7 of 13 dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date. The Court is not required to decide either title to the property or right of the possession of the same as the same lies in the realm of Civil Court.
10. Further, in the case of Paras Ram v. Sitan & Ors., Criminal Revision No. 109 of 1985, Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court, had held as under:-
".... The object of Section 145 Cr.P.C. is the prevention of breach of public peace arising in respect of disputes relating to immovable property and in order to achieve the object, the section enables the magistrate to settle the matter temporarily with the object of preventing the breach of peace. The principal object of the section, is therefore, to preserve the peace and not to determine the rights and title of the parties. The proceedings under this section have to be taken with promptitude and finished as quickly as possible. No party can be allowed to use the provisions of this section for ulterior purposes or as substitute of the civil remedies including the execution of the orders passed by the Civil Court. No party can be allowed to use the proceedings for strengthening their claims in Civil Courts where the disputes are already pending...."
11. Also, in the case of Tulsa Devi v. Amar Nath & Ors., Criminal Revision No. 58 of 1991, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, was pleased to observe:-
".... 8. It is settled principle of law that in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has not to enter into questions of title or the right to possess. The foundation of his jurisdiction is the existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace. It is the factum of possession which is essential in a proceeding under this section and not the question of title. A Magistrate has no authority to restore to possession a person alleged to have been illegally dispossessed. His duly is to determine actual possession and not rightful possession. In proceeding under this Section the Magistrate is concerned only with the question of actual physical possession and he must determine that question irrespective of the right of possession. The AKASH Digitally AKASH JAIN signed by Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. JAIN Date: 2025.03.20 CR No. 20/2021 17:26:33 +0530 Page No. 8 of 13 expression "actual possession" is plain and unambiguous and has no reference to any right to possess. The Magistrate need not even record findings which may indicate title to the property. The Magistrate has to decide the question of possession without reference to the merits of the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject matter of dispute. Where he considers such merits of the title of the parties he exceeds his jurisdiction. The criminal Court will have to maintain the possession of even a trespasser, if he is found to be in actual possession of the property for more than two months before the date of the preliminary order. The Magistrate may use evidence of title merely to guide and assist his mind in coming to a decision upon the questions of possession, but if he determines the question of title alone, he is clearly doing that which the law has forbidden him to do. The Magistrate may, if necessary, take and consider evidence of title to enable him to decide the question of actual possession, but proof of title is not proof of actual possession...."
12. In the backdrop of aforesaid legal propositions, the legality and correctness of impugned order dated 11.02.2021 passed by Ld. Executive Magistrate is to be determined. The petitioner has essentially contended that he and his family members are original and actual owners of land bearing Khasra No. 310, Village Khichripur, Delhi and respondent no. 2 along with one Vijender Kumar used to create nuisance in peaceful possession of subject property by the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for petitioner relied upon a demarcation report of year 2016 of Revenue Department and contended that the land in question falls under Khasra No. 310 of Village Khichripur, Delhi and not under Khasra No. 317. It is further contended that the decree dated 14.12.2016 passed by Ld. JSCC/ ASCJ/ GJ, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Suit no. 816/07/03 (New Case No. 7675/16 in favour of predecessor in interest of respondent no. 2 was an injunction suit against DDA only, where the petitioner or AKASH Digitally signed his family members were not made any party. JAIN by AKASH JAIN Date: 2025.03.20 17:26:38 +0530 CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. Page No. 9 of 13
13. Vide suit no. 816/07/03 (New Case No. 7675/16, the predecessor in interest of respondent no. 2 categorically averred that they were the owners and in possession of property admeasuring 800 sq. yards falling in Khasra no. 317 min., Khichripur, Delhi, which contention was refuted by DDA claiming that the suit property in the said matter falls within part of Khasra No. 309 and 310/1-2/2 Village Khichripur. After leading of evidence by both the parties, the Court of Ld. ASCJ/ JSCC/ GJ, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, vide separate judgment and decree dated 14.12.2016 specifically held that the plea of DDA that suit property admeasuring 800 sq. yards was falling in Khasra no. 309 and 310/1-2/2 appeared to be a plea in disguise and that the plaintiff (predecessor in interest of respondent no. 2) was able to prove by way of site plan as well as demarcation report that the suit property admeasuring 800 sq. yards was falling in Khasra no. 317.
14. It is not in dispute as also evident from site plan Ex. PW 5/1 in suit No. 816/07/03 (New case No. 7675/2016) as well as demarcation report relied upon by the petitioner that the property in question in the present case i.e. land admeasuring 250 Sq. yards at Village Khichripur, Delhi is part of the property admeasuring 800 sq. yards qua which a decree is already obtained by respondent no. 2 against DDA. No doubt, the petitioner herein was not made party by respondent no. 2 in the said suit, however, no suitable explanation could be afforded on behalf of petitioner as to why the aforesaid decree dated 14.12.2016 was not challenged by them before competent court of law despite gaining knowledge of same during pendency of proceedings before Ld. Executive Magistrate.
AKASH Digitally signed by
AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.03.20
17:26:42 +0530
CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. Page No. 10 of 13
It is further relevant to note that the predecessor in interest of petitioner had filed a suit for injunction bearing No. 176/2010 (New Case No. 8639/2016) against DDA as well as respondent no. 2 in respect of land admeasuring 4 bighas and 10 biswa in Khasra no. 310/1, Village Khichripur, Delhi which according to them includes property in question in the present case. However, he failed to prove his possession in the suit land in terms of findings of Ld. ASCJ/ JSCC/ GJ, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide order dated 04.06.2016. Moreover, the aforesaid suit got dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2018 passed by Ld. ASCJ/ JSCC/ GJ, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, while reserving liberty for the plaintiff to file a full fledged suit for declaration and consequential relief against the defendants in respect of the suit property.
15. Since, the land in question in the present case is admittedly a vacant land, Ld. Executive Magistrate prima-facie determined its possession in favour of respondent no. 2 while relying upon decree dated 14.12.2016 passed in Civil Suit no. 816/07/03 (New Case No. 7675/16) and on account of dismissal of suit no. 176/2010 (New CS No. 8639/2016) filed by predecessor in interest of petitioner. Ld. Executive Magistrate further relied upon the fact that the petitioner in his written submissions dated 24.07.2018 had admitted in para 8 that respondent no. 2 was in settled possession of subject property. Furthermore, Ld. Executive Magistrate took notice of the fact that on the date of dispute i.e. 16.05.2018, 8 tin sheds along with 8 iron rods of respondent no. 2 were installed at the subject property AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.03.20 17:26:47 +0530 CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. Page No. 11 of 13 which were removed by the police and were also taken in the custody, which fact also finds mention in the kalandara DD No. 47-A. It is well settled that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and Ld. Executive Magistrate is not required to conduct a full fledged trial by recording evidence of the parties, which domain is specifically reserved for Civil Courts. Considering these circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 passed by Ld. Executive Magistrate on the basis of material available on record.
16. As regards, contentions of Ld. Counsel for petitioner that decree on the basis of which impugned order dated 11.02.2021 was passed by Ld. Executive Magistrate was obtained at his back without making him party to the proceedings; that the decree dated 14.12.2016 was in persona and not binding upon petitioner; that the land in question actually falls under Khasra No. 310 of Village Khichripur, Delhi which belongs to petitioner, these contentions could be raised by petitioner in separate legal proceedings before competent Civil Court. The proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are only to preserve the peace and not to determine absolute rights and title of the parties. Further, no party can be allowed to use these proceedings for strengthening their claims in Civil Courts where their disputes are already pending. Reliance is placed upon the case of Jhummamal @ Devandas v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 1988 (4) SCC 452, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:-
".... An order made under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. deals only with the factum of possession of the party as on a AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. JAIN Date: 2025.03.20 17:26:51 +0530 Page No. 12 of 13 particular day. It confers no title to remain in possession of the disputed property. The order is subject to decision of the civil court. The unsuccessful party therefore must get relief only in the civil court. He may move the civil court with properly constituted suit. He may file a suit for declaration and prove a better right to possession. The civil court has jurisdiction to give a finding different from that which the Magistrate has reached...."
17. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and observations as above, the revision petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Copy of this order along with original record be sent back to the Office of Ld. Executive Magistrate concerned for information and records.
18. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.03.20 17:26:57 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN) COURT ON 19.03.2025 ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI This order contains 13 pages and each paper is signed by me.Digitally signed
AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2025.03.20 17:27:17 +0530 (AKASH JAIN) ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI CR No. 20/2021 Ravi Nagar v. State & Anr. Page No. 13 of 13