RAMUN AND ORS. Vs. PARMANAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of the order dated 27 -1 -1470 passed by Shri Ram Sanehi, SDM Rasra. By the impugned order the magistrate held that the proceedings Under Sec. 145 Code of Criminal Procedure have become infructuous and superfluous and therefore, he dropped the proceedings and vacated the attachment order. He has further directed Station Officer PS Rasra, to watch the opposite party and report for action Under Sec. 107/117 Code of Criminal Procedure if there be any apprehension of breach of peace found from the parties in future. Against this order revision application was preferred before the Sessions Judge who dismissed it summarily. Hence this revision application has been preferred.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an application Under Sec. 145 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by Ramun for taking action as there was apprehension of breach of peace in respect to the property in dispute. The magistrate after passing the preliminary order called upon the parties to file their respective written statements in respect of their claims and also directed the parties to file affidavits and evidence showing their possession over the property in dispute. The magistrate did not decide the question of possession and he had referred the matter Under Sec. 146(1) Code of Criminal Procedure after drawing up statement of facts, to the court of the Munsif, to decide the question whether any or which of the parties was in possession of the property in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and two months prior to it and he directed the parties to appear before the Munsif on a fixed date. The record, as it appears, was sent to the court of the Munsif by the magistrate on 25th of October, 1968. An application was moved by Parmanand Singh on 30th of July, 1969, that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and the question of title to the attached property was decided by consolidation officer and he was declared as Bhumidhar of the disputed land. On the application of Parmanand Singh, Ramun filed an objection stating that the facts stated in the application are wrong. It was stated that the alleged decision by the Consolidation Officer was under appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and it was not a final order and no action could be taken on the basis of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The magistrate by the impugned order upheld the title and possession of Parmanand Singh as decided by the Consolidation Officer. According to the magistrate the purpose of proceedings Under Sec. 145 Code of Criminal Procedure has ended as the regular suit regarding the title was decided by the revenue court. He has also held that the pendency of the appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) against the order of the Consolidation Officer would not alter the position as regards the proceedings Under Sec. 145 Code of Criminal Procedure because according to the magistrate unless the order of the Consolidation Officer is set aside it is a legal order and Parmanand Singh will remain Bhumidhar of the land so long as the order of the Consolidation Officer remains in force.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Applicants argued that the order is not a proper order under the provisions of Sec. 146 Code of Criminal Procedure. He invited my attention to the provisions of Sec. 146(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant portion of the Sec. runs thus: