GIRJA SHANKER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. N. Mehrotra, J. Criminal revision No. 457 of 1987 has been filed by revisionist Girja Shanker Tewari against the order dated 5-3-1987 by Sri M. P. Singh, Sessions Judge, Ballia, allowing the revision filed by Rajat Kumar and four others against the order by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, directing that the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. are to continue and also attaching the property in dispute. The Criminal application No. 3930 of 1988 has been filed by Rajat Kumar and others under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. on the ground that a civil litigation in respect of the land in dispute was pending between the parties.

(2.) BOTH these cases have been taken up and heard together and shall be disposed of by this judgment. The facts of the case, brieflp stated, are that Girja Shanker Tiwari moved an application alleging that there was dispute between the parties regarding the pessession over the land in dispute which may lead to the breach of peace. Report was called from S. O. concerned, after which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. initiating proceedings in the case. It appears that the second party i. e. Rajat Kumar and others filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act before the competent Court for declaration of the title in respect of the land in dispute. An application was moved before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned praying that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. be dropped as civil litigation in respect of the same was pending between the parties to the proceedings. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that Girja Shanker Tiwari was not a party to the proceedings under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has, during his arguments pointed out that the entire land which was in dispute in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was not in dispute in suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Aboli tion and Land Reforms Act. He has mentioned that the property in dispute in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. consists of land situated in village Karnai, Gharhara and Sukulpur which has beed detailed in the preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. passed on 11-2-1986, in schedule '' and ''. It has been mentioned that some plots of the land situated in village Gharhra as well as land situated in village Shukulpura and detailed in schedule ' ' of the order is not included in the suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. It is thus obvious that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in observing that the entire property which was in dispute in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was also in dispute in the suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act.