PARAG BAI Vs. TEEKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 26. 9. 2007 passed in Criminal Revision no. 237/2005 whereby learned 10th additional Sessions Judge (FTC ). Durg allowing the revision preferred by respondent No. 1 has set aside the order dated 27. 7. 2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 1320/2000 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Durg and remitted the matter to the Sub-Divisional magistrate after recording a finding that the respondent No. 1 was in possession of the disputed land on 9. 10. 2000 i. e. the date of passing of the preliminary order.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts, necessary for decision of this revision petition, are that the station House Officer. Dhamdha filed istgasha under Section 145 of the Code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred toas the Code)mentioning therein that because of dispute with respect to the possession of the disputed land situated in village bhata Kokadi, there is a tension between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 which may result in breach of peace. After passing the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) of the Code, notice was issued to the parties. An application was filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 146 of the code which was rejected by the sub-Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 30th october, 2000. The respondent No. 1 preferred Criminal Revision No. 297/2000 against rejection of his application under section 146 of the Code, however the revision was also dismissed by the 4th additional Sessions Judge, Durg vide order dated 14. 3. 2001.

(3.) 'the petitioner in her written statement averred that she purchased the disputed land from its owner Salik Ram vide registered sale deed for consideration of rs. 7,000 on 3. 4. 1974, She got her name mutated in the revenue record and since then she is in possession. She has also affected sale of some part of the land. In the relevant year also, she had sown paddy and other crops in her land and had harvested the crop. The original owner of the land was her maternal grand-father and she is in possession of the same by virtue of the sale deed executed by her maternalgrand-father salik Ram Lodhi. The respondent No. 1 made a false claim by way of filing a petition before Tehsildar, Dhamdha that he and the petitioner and his other brothers are successors of Salik Ram Lodhi who died in the year 1995 and his lone successor daughter jhoonabai died in his life time and the petitioner has wrongly got entered her name in the revenue records. She gave half share of the land before the Panchas of the village and, therefore, his name should also be recorded as joint owner and the proceedings are pending before the Tehsildar.