LAL BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Sahay, J. This is a revision against the order dated 25-3-1982 passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh, setting aside an order passed by S. D. M. Sagari, dated 6-2-1982, directing release of the attached property in favour of the ap plicants in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate felt satisfied on the basis of a police report that there was apprehension of breach of peace on account of the dispute between the parties regarding plot Nos. 281, 70 and 303. He therefore, passed preliminary order on 25-8-1981 and directed that the property in dispute be attached under Section 146 (2), Cr. P. C. Later on the proceedings were dropped by the learned Magistrate and then a question arose as to in whose favour the attached property may be released. THE learned Magistrate on the basis of a report of S. O. Raunapar, dated 25-8-1981 that crops were grown on the disputed plots by the applicants at the time of attachment. Hence, he directed that the disputed plots and the crops standing thereon, may be released in favour of the applicants. Against this order Sarwati Singh, opposite party No. 2 filed a revision in the Court of Sessions. It was urged by him before the learned Sessions Judge, that after dropping the proceedings it was not open to the learned S. D. M. to determine the possession of the parties and hence, the order regarding release of property in favour of one of the parties passed by him was illegal. This contention was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He referred to the admission made by the applicants Lal Bahadur and others in their applica tion dated 23-10-1981 that the disputed plot is the joint property of the parties and is also in their joint possession. It was accordingly held on the basis of this admission that both parties are in possession of the land in dispute and it is not justified that possession should be given to any one of them. In this view of the matter the revision filed by opposite party No. 2 was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the order of release passed by the learned S. D. M. was set aside and it was directed that the amount of crop in question shall be held in deposit until the parties get their rights established from a competent court.