LAWS(CHH)-2019-12-74

PRAVEEN KUMAR KALMEGH Vs. SATISH CHANDRA SHUKLA

Decided On December 02, 2019
Praveen Kumar Kalmegh Appellant
V/S
SATISH CHANDRA SHUKLA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners call in question the order of the revisional Court dated 9?10?2012 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No.143/2012 by which the learned revisional Court has affirmed the order dated 10?7?2012 passed by the Sub? Divisional Magistrate, Chhawni (Durg) in Criminal Case No.4350/2009.

(2.) I have heard petitioner No.1 in person and learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the records.

(3.) On the istegasha having been submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, Bhilai, before the Sub?Divisional Magistrate, Chhawni (Durg) (party No.1 being the petitioners herein and party No.2 being respondents No.1 and 2 herein), with respect to Khasra No.2635/1, area 4680 sq.ft., both claiming possession over the suit land and there is likely to be breach of peace over the said land, preliminary order under Section 145 of the CrPC was passed and both the parties were directed to submit their claim with regard to possession. Thereafter, parties appeared and filed their respective documents and by order dated 22?2?2010, possession of the petitioners herein - party No.1 was declared over the suit land which was challenged by respondents No.1 and 2 herein in Criminal Revision No.45/2010 and the said revision was allowed by the revisional Court and the matter was remanded to the Sub?Divisional Magistrate for establishing the identity of Khasra Nos.2767, 2830, 2831 and 2635 after making demarcation. Thereafter, demarcation was made and ultimately, by order dated 10?7?2012, the Sub? Divisional Magistrate, Chhawni (Durg) held that possession of respondents No.1 and 2 was found on Khasra No.2635/1, area 4680 sq.ft., which was challenged by the petitioners herein before the revisional Court and the learned revisional Court by order dated 9? 10?2012 dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of the learned Sub?Divisional Magistrate against which this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been filed.