PRADEEP TYAGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition which is directed against order dated 26.18.83 of an Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the order of the S.D.M. dated 22.1.83 passed u/s 145(1) and 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), succinctly are that respondents 2 to 8 are sons of late Shri Bhagwan Dass. They are residents of village Chhawla and they owned land comprised in preconsolidation khata No. 84 situated within the revenue estate of the said village, jointly with S/Shri Pyare and Surte, sons of Shri Kanahiya, their share in the said land being 3/4th and the share of Pyare and Surte being 1/4th. Long back Pyare and Surte started residing in a village in District Rohtak and, therefore, respondents 2 to 8 continued to be in cultivatory possession of the same. At the time of consolidation of holdings, the land allotted in lieu of the land comprised in khata No. 84 was split into two portions, one block having been allotted to respondents 2 to 8 and the other block having been allotted to in the shape of plots to Surte and Pyare. The land allotted to Surte and Pyare comprised khasta Nos. 621/2(0-11) and 578(1-1) Partition of the land so alltoted into two blocks was opposed tooth and nail by respondents 2 to 8 who contended that Surte and Pyare having left the village Chhawla since long, they alone were entitled to the entire land allotted in lieu of preconsolidation land. Moreover, they asserted that the land so allotted could not be split into two blocks without their consent as per policy laid in the scheme of consolidation of holdings Having met with no success at the level of consolidation officers they went in revision u/s 42 of the E.P Holdings (C & P F) Act, 1948, as extended to Delhi. The said revision petition was rejected by Shri D.K. Das, Fin. Comm., Delhi, on 14th May 1982. It is contended by the respondents that they have filed a writ petition against the said order and the same, having been admitted, is still pending in this Court, The petitioner Pradeep Tyagi is the General Attorney of Smt. Renu Singh who allegedly purchased khasra No. 621/2 (11 Biswas) from S/sh. Pyare & Surte vide registered sale deed dated 1.9.82. Claiming that he was in possession of the said land (now in dispute) as a Care taker on behalf of vendee, he made complaint to the SDM, Punjabi Bagh, on 17.1.83 for initiating proceedings u/s 145 of the Code. He contended that the opposite party, viz. respondents 2 to 8 in collusion with officials of the Police Chowki were threatening to dispossess him by resort to use of force and committing trespass. An attempt made by them in this direction a few days earlier was, however, foiled but the opposite party was out to commit breach of peace and had hurled threats of commission of murder & other crimes to achieve their object.

(2.) The S.D.M. on receipt of the said complaint, called for a rport from the concerned SHO and the latter submitted his report on 18.1.83. He, inter alia, stated that respondents 2 to 8 wanted to occupy the plot illegally and forcibly as they claimed the same to be their ancestral property and contended that Surte and Pyare had no right to sell the piece of land in dispute. On receipt of the said report the S.D.M made an order on 20.1.83 that both the concerned parties be informed to appear before him on 22.1.83. and they be also directed to maintain status quo till further orders. Accordingly, both the parties appeared before the S.D.M. on 22.1.83 when the respondets 2 to 8 sought an adjournment for filing a reply, request was, however, opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the respondents were interested in delaying the matter. So, after hearing the petitioner and pursuing the police report etc. he was satisfied that sufficient reasons existed for making an order u/s 145(1) of the Code. Accordingly, he drew up a preliminary order assuming jurisdiction in the matter u/s 145(1) of the code. He also made an order attaching the property in question u/s 146 of the Code on the ground that the police report indicated that the situation was such as to render the attachment necessary and that the applicant too was feeling absolutely helpless in resisting any incident of breach of peace at the hands of the respondents who were six in number.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved the respondents went in revision against the said order in the Sessions Court. They called in question the legality as well as propriety of order of the SDM assuming jurisdiction u/s 145(1) on the ground that the circumstances did not warrant the same and that the proceedings under the said provisions of law had been initiated malafide with the sole object of dispossessing them and putting the petitioner Pradeep Tyagi in possession of the disputed land as he happened to be son of a L.A. Collector and had access to the SDM. Further, they assailed the order of attachment u/s 146 on the ground that no case of emergency as envisaged in S. 146 was made out and also that an order u/s 146 could not be made simultaneously with an order u/s 145. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the police report as well as the complaint lodged by the the petitioner before the SDM indicated that a dispute existed betweed the parties not only with regard to the title to the land in question but also with regard to possession thereof and the petitioner apprehended his dispossession at the hands of the respondents leading to breach of peace. However, she observed that sufficiency of the material on which the satisfaction of the SDM was based could not be gone into by the revisional court. As regards the order of attachment, however, she felt that the SDM could not make a composite order both u/s 145(1) & 146 and the latter provision could be invoked after a preliminary order u/s 145(1) had been made. It would appear that order dated 20.1.83 was also called in question on the ground that before assuming jurisdiction by making a preliminary order u/s 145(1) the SDM was not competent to direct the parties to maintain status quo. However this prayer was rejected on the short ground that the respondents ought to have filed a separate revision against the same, which they failed to do, in case they considered that the said order had not merged into subsequent order dated 22.1.83. In the end, however, she set aside order of the S.D.M. dated 22nd January 1983.