SHITLA PRASAD Vs. ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE GYANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order, dated 6-8-1993, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi, dismissing the revision preferred before him and also for quashing the order, dated 15-3-1993 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gyanpur, Varanasi, attaching- the property in dispute under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. and to give it in possession to a third person after attachment.

(2.) PETITIONERS, case is that they purchased the disputed property on 7-8-1969 from Ram Ajug son of Ram Dawan and got delivery of possession. Their names were mutated in the revenue records under Section 34 of the Land Reforms Act. Respondents No 3 to 5 contested but the objection raised by them was rejected on 26-5-1973 in case Nos. 22/72, 23/72 and 24/72 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gyanpur, Varanasi (filed as Annexure I of the rejoinder affidavit ). Respondents No. 3 to 5 claimed that the disputed plots were purchased by them by registered deed of sale, dated 6-6-1969 from Smt. Lakhpati widow of Sheo Achal Pandey but their names were not mutated in the revenue records.

(3.) BY an order of the Magistrate dated 21-12-1983 the proceeding was dropped but in revision the Addl. Sessions Judge set aside the said order by the judgment and order dated 26-9-1988 with a direction to hear the petition of the revisionists for modification of the preliminary order and also to consider whether there was any emergency for further adjudication under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. Thereupon the learned Magistrate passed an order on 15-3-1993 under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. and attached the property and passed an, order" for appointing a receiver. Being aggrieved by the said Order the petitioners filed a revision before the leartied Sessions Judge, Varanasi, and the same was ultimately heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi, who dismissed the revision by an order, dated 6-8-1993 on the ground that the impugned order was interlocutory order and hence no revision will lie.