TEKRAM Vs. SATYAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the Applicants against the order dated 19.4.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Criminal Revision No.4 of 2017, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the revision preferred by Respondents No.1 to 3 against the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the S.D.M., Pathariya in Criminal Case No.16 of 2015 and quashed the order of the S.D.M.

(2.) Facts of the case are that Respondents No.1 to 3 moved an application before the S.D.M. under Section 145-146 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that they are the title holders of the property situated at Khasra No.21, 22/1£, 22/1x, 29, total area 1.489 Hectares and they have also sown paddy on the said land and the present Applicants are threatening them to cut the crop grown over the said land. It was replied by the Applicants that the disputed property belongs to both of the Applicants along with Late Shrawan Kumar, father of Respondents No.1 to 3. It was also replied that after the death of Shrawan Kumar, his wife Sunita, i.e., mother of Respondents No.1 to 3 performed second marriage with Raju Shastri, therefore, she does not have any interest over the said property. Respondents No.1 to 3 are minors and the Applicants are looking after them.

(3.) On 28.11.2015 the S.D.M. passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Cr.P.C. and thereby seized the crop grown over the disputed property and also directed to hand over the crop grown over the said property to any independent person on supurdnama. Thereafter, in compliance with this order of the S.D.M., the crop was seized and handed over to the Sarpanch of the village on supurdnama. Against the preliminary order of the S.D.M. a revision was preferred by the present Applicants before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was rejected vide order dated 19.8.2016. On 3.11.2016, the present Applicants moved an application before the S.D.M. for cancellation of the order of seizure of the crop grown over the disputed land on the ground that the mother of the Respondents No.1 to 3 performed second marriage and Applicant No.1 is the grand father of Respondents No.1 to 3 and the disputed land is recorded in the revenue records in the name of Applicant No.1. Vide order dated 22.12.2016, the S.D.M. set aside the order of seizure of the crop and handed over the crop on supurdnama. Against this order, a revision was preferred by the Respondents No.1 to 3 before the Additional Sessions Judge. Vide the impugned order, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision of the Respondents No.1 to 3 and quashed the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the S.D.M.