Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. On 13-6-1972 the then Executive Engineer, Chamba for the first time made an attempt to take forcible possession of the site of the bridge along-with the property lying thereon from the company with the assistance of his own men. That attempt of the Executive Engineer was successfully resisted by the petitioner who on coming to know of the designs of the Executive Engineer had arranged for police protection in advance. Thereafter on 13-9-1972 respondent No. 1 who had then taken over as Executive Engineer, Chamba sent a telegram to the petitioner . stating therein that under Clause 18 of the agreement, respondent No. 1 would be implementing the order of rescission dated 7-6-1972 on 15-9-1972 at 10.30 a.m. Respondent No. 1 further directed vide the aforesaid telegram to the petitioner to depute some representatives as respondent No. 1 intended to take final measurements and also the control of the property. In pursuance to that telegram respondent No. 1 accompanied by respondents 3 and 5 and some other 50 Beldars duly armed with Gentis, Belchas and Jhabbals actually came to the spot at 10.30 a.m. on 15-9-1972 to take forcible possession from the company. The petitioner, however, did not permit them to enter upon the site unless they showed him some order of a competent court. The petitioner had also arranged for police force and the A. S. I. present on the spot also told respondent No. 1 that he could help respondent No. 1 in taking over possession only after respondent No. 1 produced orders from some competent Court to that effect. As respondent No. 1 insisted to take possession, the A. S. I. informed the District authorities of his difficulties on which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chamba reached the spot by about 12.30 p. m. where he held a conference with respondent No. I and the Managing Director of the company. After holding some talks the Sub Divisional Magistrate left at about 1.30 p. m. without passing any order. Respondent No. 1, after the departure of the Sub Divisional Magistrate again tried to take forcible possession of the site and the material which the petitioner was again successful in resisting with the help of the police. Respondent. No. 1 along with his men had to go back without success. Respondent Nos. 3 and 5, however, on that day made a written complaint to the A. S. I, respondent No. 6 who on that com-plaint wrongfully arrested the petitioner under Section 353, I. P. C.

7. On the following day, that is, 1.6-9-1972 respondent No. 1 accompanied by the other respondents again visited the spot at about 1 p.m. to take forcible possession. It was a local holiday on that day and for that reason the company was also having an off day and no work was in progress on the site. Only three Chowkidars of the company were present to guard the site on that day. The respondents after wrongfully arresting those three Chowkidars on duty, entered upon the site where they broke open the locks of the office, store room, almirahs and Chowkidars' quarters and dishonestly removed movable property of the company from its possession and without its consent. Besides other movables, cash amount of Rs. 14,365-00 which was lying in the office of the company was also removed by the respondents. Thus according to the petitioner, the respondents after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly with intent to take forcible possession from the company had committed the offences as stated in the complaint.