PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. R MUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 21.12.2001; passed by Shri F.L. Unjan, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 259/2001 whereby the order dated 22.5.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katghora in proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure declaring that the Applicant herein was entitled to continue in possession of the disputed land till dispossessed in accordance with law was set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts are as follows: R. Mugam, the non-Applicant No. 1 herein initiated proceedings under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure on 28.10.2000 by making an application before the S.D.M. Katghora that land bearing Kh. No. 53/3 and 54 total area 1.30 acre situated in village Nawagaon, Patwari Halka No. 26, revenue circle Katghora, Tahsil Katghora District Korba was recorded in his name and he had cultivated paddy crop on the aforesaid land which was forcibly cut by Pawan Kumar Sharma the Applicant herein on 28.10.2000. It was alleged that breach of peace was likely. The S.D.M. called for a report from the Station House Officer, P.S. Katghora. On 14.11.2000 the S.H.O. Katghora sent a report that Mara Swami, father of the non-Applicant No. 1 herein, had sold the disputed land to the Applicant herein for a sum of Rs. 13,100/- in the year 1981. Thereafter, the Applicant herein was in possession of the disputed land. The non-Applicant No. 1 herein who resided towards Balaghat returned to village Nawagaon 5 years back and in the year 1999 had sown the paddy crop on this disputed land. The Applicant herein had also sown the paddy crop on the disputed land. The Applicant herein had also sown the paddy crop on the disputed land. The Applicant herein harvested the paddy crop. There was likelihood of breach of peace and preventive action under Section 107 & 116 of Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated. Upon this, the S.D.M. passed a preliminary order on 14.11.2000 requiring the parties to submit their respective claims regarding the actual possession over the land in dispute.

(3.) R. Mugam, the non-Applicant herein, preferred a criminal revision against the order dated 22.5.2001 passed by the S.D.M. before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge without appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties relating to the actual possession over the disputed land and ignoring the report of Patwari and S.H.O. Katghora allowed the revision only on the ground that R. Mugam was the recorded owner of the land in revenue records and since there was no rebuttal of these documents, the order passed by the learned S.D.M. was contrary to law. It also held that Pawan Kumar Sharma did not adduce any evidence to prove that he had purchased the land for Rs. 13,100/- from the father of R. Mugam. In other words, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the learned S.D.M. on the basis of the right to possess the subject of dispute by the non-Applicant No. 1 herein.