Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 August, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-19485 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-19485 of 2010
Date of decision: 09.08.2012
Manjit Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate, for
Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.
*****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.5.2010 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ropar.
Brief facts of the present case are that one Prem Kaur was the owner of the land in dispute and she allegedly executed a 'Will' dated 8.12.2007 and mutation on the basis of 'Will' was entered by the Circle Patwari and presented to Assistant Collector Second Grade. The petitioner raised an objection to the 'Will' and claimed that Prem Kaur was his mother-in-law. During the lifetime, Prem Kaur had given her land for cultivation to one Sher Singh and he was in possession of the land on batai/chakota. After the death of Prem Kaur, Jaspreet Singh, grandson of Prem Kaur, claimed 12 kanals and 6 marlas land and he alleged to have sown paddy in one acre and remaining half acre remained uncultivated. On the application of the petitioner, SDM Ropar Crl. Misc. No. M-19485 of 2010 -2- vide order dated 26.7.2008 initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and appointed receiver with regard to the property in question. The SDM afforded opportunity to lead evidence to the parties. Ultimately after consideration of evidence, SDM came to the conclusion that at this point of time land is in possession of Jaspreet Singh son of Raghbir Singh and appointed receiver and held that as and when the mutation proceedings are decided between the parties, then the property will be released in his favour. Against the order dated 26.7.2008 passed by SDM Ropar, Jaspreet Singh - respondent No.2 preferred a revision before learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been allowed. Hence this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the property was in the name of Prem Kaur and was earlier cultivated by one Sher Singh. Petitioner is also one of the natural heirs of said Prem Kaur so is the respondents, however, respondent No.2 has claimed the property on the basis of 'Will' dated 8.12.2007. As such the mutation has not been finalized. So respondent No.2 cannot be treated in possession of the land in question.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 contended that even the SDM had come to the conclusion that Jaspreet Singh - respondent No.2 was in possession when the property was brought under Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings and subsequently receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C. has been appointed. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 vehemently argued that possession two months prior to the date of Crl. Misc. No. M-19485 of 2010 -3- initiating proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is required to be taken into consideration. He had made reference to Section 145 Cr.P.C. and contended that the proceedings can only be initiated if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion 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. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that mutation has been sanctioned in the name of Charan Singh, Raghbir Singh, Jaspreet Singh, Mewa Singh and Manjit Kaur. It is further submitted that civil suit regarding validity and genuineness of the 'Will' is also pending in the Civil Court. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Zoravar Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 1029 and Ram Niwas and others vs. Bhagirath and others, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 57 to contend that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated when the civil proceedings are pending.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions.
Admittedly, the property was in the name of Prem Kaur. Even if it is presumed that the property has gone to the natural heirs i.e. Manjit Kaur, Raghbir Singh and Charan Singh and the validity of 'Will' is also pending before the Civil Court, it is settled principle of law that mutation does not confer any title over the property. In the present case, Jaspreet Singh - respondent No.2 son of Raghbir Singh - respondent No.3 has been found to be in possession by the SDM also. The said finding could not be rebutted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, once Crl. Misc. No. M-19485 of 2010 -4- the possession of Jaspreet Singh is there prior to the initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the police, then such proceedings cannot be initiated unless it is shown by the petitioner that she has been dispossessed forcibly and wrongfully two months prior to the date of initiating proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that petitioner was ever in possession and she was forcibly dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report has been made by the police officer or any information has been received by the Magistrate. Rather the application moved by the petitioner (Annexure P-1) indicates that her mother-in-law Prem Kaur had given land of her share to one Sher Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, for cultivation and Sher Singh was cultivating the same and it is mentioned in the petition that directions may be issued to other party i.e. respondents that Sher Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, should be allowed to cultivate the property of Prem Kaur. From the reading of the application (Annexure P-1) dated 11.6.2008 it becomes clear that the petitioner never made a claim that she was in possession and has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed by the respondents.
In view of this, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of learned Additional Session Judge. Further in view of the fact that the civil suit is pending, no ground is made out to interfere.
Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge August 09, 2012 R.S.