RAM KOMAL Vs. IVTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The facts leading to this writ petition may be summarised as below : The police of police station Khalilabad, district Basti gave a report dated 23-5-1995, under Section 145 of the Cr. P.C.in respect of certain agricultural plots specified therein (Annexure No. 1) claiming that there was an apprehension of breach of peace between the parties and praying that action be taken under Section 145 Cr. P.C.and orders he passed under Section 146 Cr. P.C.The Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Khalilabad, District Basti passed a preliminary order on 9-6-1995 under Section 145 (1) Cr. P.C.(Annexure No. 2). By the order the parties were called upon to appear on 21-6-1996 to file their written statement in respect of their claim of possession and also to adduce their oral and documentary evidence in respect thereof. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order dated 19-6-1995 (Annexure No. 3) (i.e. before the date fixed for appearance of the parties and for filing their written statement of claim and for leading their evidence) in which he not only stated that there was an apprehension of breach of peace between the parties but also stated that he is unable to decide as to which party is in possession of the disputed land and also directed for attachment of the disputed land and that the land be kept under attachment till such time as the decree or order is obtained from a Court competent to decide the claim of title or possession of parties. In pursuance of the said order the attachment was made on 25-6-1995. A copy of the attachment memo has been filed with the writ petition as Annexure No. 4. On 24-6-95 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate stayed the implementation of the order dated 19-6-1995 aforesaid. A revision against the said stay order dated 24-6-1995 (Annexure No. 5) was filed, which became Revision No. 217 of 1995. That revision was dismissed summarly by the IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Basti vide his order dated 24-6-1995 (Annexure No. 6), on the ground that the stay order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Basti was an interlocutory order. The controversy about this order dated 24-6-95 has become immaterial as on the own showing of the petitioner the attachment order dated 19-6-1995 (Annexure No. 3) had already been implemented before the communication of the stay order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Annexure No. 5). The orders dated 9-6-95 (Annexure No. 2) and dated 19-6-95 (Annexure No. 3) were challenged by Ram Komal petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 217 of 1994. Two revisions i.e. Revision No. 239 of 1995 by Ram Shankar, Opp. Party No. 3, and Revision No. 28 of 1995 by Bhanumati, opposite party No. 4, were also filed before the IVth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basti. Revision No. 217 of 1994 and Revision No. 210 of 1995 were disposed of by a common judgment dated 14-2-1996 (Annexure No. 7) by the IVth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basti, Opp. Party No. 1. The learned IVth Addl. District and Sessions Judge Basti upheld the preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cr. P.C.(Annexure No. 2) but set aside the order dated 19-6-95 (Annexure No. 3).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14-2-1996 (Annexure No. 7) in so far as it set aside the order dated 19-6-95 (Annexure No. 3)