RAM LAKHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 18-1-1994 passed by Sri S. N. Singh, the then Sessions Judge, Banda, whereby he having allowed the revision No. 93 of 1993 Ayaz Ahmad and another v. Daya Ram and 8 others, has set aside the order dated 13-10-1993 passed by the then S. D. M. Banda and has further held the appeal No. Nil of 1993 Ram Vishal v. Ayaz Ahmad and others filed by the revisionists to be not maintainable.

(2.) The skeleton facts necessary to get hang of the controversy involved in this revision are that on an application of Afaq Ahmad predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 and 3 about there being an apprehension of breach of peace from one Sheokanth Singh, predecessor-in-interest of revisionists with respect to possession of plot Nos. 319 area 3.27 acres and 315 area 3.34 acres situated in village Laumar within police circle Chilla of District Banda, the then Executive Magistrate Banda, drew a preliminary order under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the parties to put in their written statements of respective claims as respects the facts of their actual possession over the aforesaid plots. As it appears both the parties to the proceeding appeared before the learned Magistrate, filed their respective claims of possession and adduced evidence in support thereof. The learned S.D.M. Banda having failed to decide the possession of either party on the date of preliminary order, attached the plots in question till the decision of a competent court and placed them into supurdgi of a supurdar. As it transpires, while the aforesaid plots were still in custodia legis i.e. in the supurdgi of the supurdar. Respondents 2 and 3 got themselves mutated in revenue records by an order of Naib Tahsildar, Papreda in a proceeding under Ss. 33 and 34 LR Act in case No. 66 Afaq Ahmad and another v. Sardar Singh and others and made an application to the S. D. M. Banda for release of the disputed plots in their favour. The learned S. D. M. Banda through his order dated 30-9-1993 released the disputed plots in favour of the respondents 2 and 3. After the revisionists came to learn about the said order of 30-9-1993, they moved an application on 13-10-1993 for cancellation or recall of the said order on which the learned S. D. M. Banda issued notice to respondents 2 and 3 fixing 16-10-1993 for disposal. Aggrieved from this order of the learned S. D. M., respondents 2 and 3 preferred a revision No. 93 of 1993. The revisionists also preferred an appeal challenging the order of S. D. M. Banda dated 30-9-1993 directing the release of the disputed plots in favour of respondents 2 and 3. The learned Sessions Judge heard the said revision No. 93 of 1993 filed by the respondents 2 and 3 and the appeal preferred by the revisionists against the order of the S.D.M. dated 30-9-1993 together and passed the impugned order, dissatisfied from which the revisionists have come up in this revision.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned A. G. A. and have also gone through the materials on record.