Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dev Raj And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 October, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-22381 of 2012 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-22381 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : October 1st , 2012
Dev Raj and another
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for the State.
None for respondent no.5.
Mr. Anil Chaudhary, Advocate,
for respondents No. 6 to 13.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Petitioners, Dev Raj and Jaspal Singh have brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to respondents No. 1 to 4 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners who apprehend imminent threat to their lives and properties at the hands of respondents No. 6 to 13.
Narrating the facts leading to the filing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are Crl. Misc. No.M-22381 of 2012 2 ..
residents of village Mundakhera, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. According to him, the dispute relates to a piece of land situated at village Rampura Gujran, Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur. Earlier the land of Mrs. Barma Devi widow of Harbhaj Singh, and Sukhdev Singh etc. had been joint. The said land was partitioned by the court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Moonak. Warrant of possession was issued thereafter by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Moonak and Barma Devi and others were put in possession of the partitioned land with police assistance. For police assistance, the District Magistrate, Sangrur had written to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur vide letter dated 12.8.2011 for providing police assistance because quarrel between the parties at the time of execution of warrant of possession was anticipated. On 15.12.2011, the possession had been given of the partitioned land to Barma Devi and others.
Vide registered sale deed dated 22.2.2012, the petitioners and other persons, their co-sharers, purchased land measuring 31 kanals 17 marlas from Barma Devi. Possession of the land so purchased was also delivered to the petitioners and the revenue entries were corrected in their favour. The land had crop thereon, the compensation of which was got deposited from Barma Devi and others. Mutation was also sanctioned regarding land measuring 31 kanals 17 marlas in favour of the petitioners and others. Sukhdev Singh and others, the private respondents were, however, threatening the petitioners without any reason. On 14.4.2012 at about 8.00 AM the petitioners went to see their crop. They saw the private respondents harvesting the crop from their fields with the help of a combine harvester. They did not stop doing Crl. Misc. No.M-22381 of 2012 3 ..
so even when the petitioners requested them. They rather threatened to kill the petitioners. Out of fear, petitioner No.1 and others ran away from the spot and lodged a report with the police bearing FIR No. 56 dated 16.4.2012 at Police Station Moonak under sections 148, 447, 379, 506 read with section 149 IPC. The police did not take any action in the matter. The crops stolen by the private respondents had also not been recovered. On 13.5.2012, Parminder Singh and others had been present in their fields. Motorcycle of Parminder Singh was parked there and two tractors were also there. At about 11.00 AM Sukhdev Singh, Baldev Singh, Harbans, Jasbir, Krishan, Pritam and Jasram holding dangs, Rameshwar, Rano and others holding sticks and gandasis came there. Prem Singh raised lalkara to set the tractor on fire. Krishan threw oil on the tractor and Dev Raj set it on fire. They were also assaulted. Other tractor trolly and motorcycle were also set on fire. The petitioners suffered a loss of ` 7.00 lakhs in this regard. Matter was reported to the police and the police had registered FIR No. 66 dated 13.5.2012 for an offence punishable under sections 148, 336, 323 read with section 149 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The police, however, recorded a cross version of the private respondents vide DDR No. 35 dated 13.5.2012 at Police Station Moonak. The petitioners had suffered serious injuries and the police was hesitating in taking action against the private respondents. Harinder Singh, respondent No. 5, a Deputy Superintendent of Police is said to be openly siding with the private respondents. Thereafter, Sukhdev Singh, respondent No. 6 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Crl. Misc. No.M-22381 of 2012 4 ..
Division), Moonak and moved an application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC in the same in which the court had ordered maintenance of status quo. It is claimed that now the petitioners are afraid of going to their land because of the hostile attitude of Sukhdev Singh and others and non helping attitude of the police.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.5, the DSP is the prime problem creator. According to him, the police is also helpless because of his involvement in the matter. He has submitted that there is no denial on the part of the State that initially, possession of the land was given to Barma Devi and that from her, the petitioners had taken possession of the land. In this regard, he referred me to para No. 3 of the reply on merits, filed by the State where the State has admitted that the private respondents and their persons hold dharna to pressurize the police and local administration to delete section 307 from the case. According to him, this admission on the part of the State reflects the true position where the police is trying to take shelter behind this type of flimsy plea and is not coming forward to grant protection to the life, liberty and property of the petitioners.
Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the police had already registered FIRs on reporting of the incidents to them. He stands by the reply filed by the State in this regard.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 6 to 13 has submitted that in cross cases both the parties have been granted anticipatory bail by the courts. According to him, there is no quarrel with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners except the factum of partition. According to him, the partition was not correctly made and that Crl. Misc. No.M-22381 of 2012 5 ..
the same has been challenged by Sukhdev Singh and others before the civil court. He has further submitted that the civil court has taken into account the factual position and has made an order directing the parties to maintain status quo over the property in question. He has further submitted that the petitioners have filed appeal against the order of status quo. According to him, in these circumstances it is clear that the private respondents are in possession of the entire land and the petitioners are not in possession of any portion thereof.
Barma Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had sold the land of her share measuring 31 kanals 17 marlas in village Rampura Gujran to the petitioners after getting the joint holding partitioned. Delivery of possession of the land falling to her share with the police assistance and sanction of mutation to that effect in her favour are the other facts supported by even the State. If this is the position then the private respondents cannot claim that they are in possession of the entire land. Mere making of order by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moonak on 23.4.2012 directing the parties to maintain status quo would not prove that the private respondents are in possession of the entire land. They may have challenged the partition proceedings which ultimately led to delivery of separate possession of her share to Barma Devi after depositing of the compensation for the standing crop, yet it cannot be said that the partition order had been wrong. Before such a conclusion can be arrived at, the private respondents would have to prove the partition to be wrong.
The police cannot watch helplessly if a person from another State comes and purchases some land to the disliking of the other co- Crl. Misc. No.M-22381 of 2012 6
..
sharers. It is the duty of the State to provide protection to the life, liberty and property of a citizen of India who purchases land in another State. There is totally no justification with the State government to deny the relief sought by the petitioners in this petition. The petitioners are entitled to cultivate the land they have purchased without fear of any one. There is genuine apprehension on their part of risk to their life and liberty as well as property. It is the State through the police which has to provide protection to the life, liberty and property of the petitioners.
In these circumstances, I allow this petition and direct Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, respondent No.2 to provide protection to the life, liberty and property of the petitioners and ensure that they are not harmed in their agricultural operations conducted on the land measuring 31 kanals 17 marlas purchased by them from Mrs. Barma Devi at the hands of respondents No. 6 to 13.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 1st, 2012 som