SARDAR SINGH Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by Sardar Singh arises out of proceedings Under Sec. 145 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the appreciation of the point involved in it are not in dispute. It is common ground that the 52 plots which are the subject of dispute in the present case were granted by the Government, to four persons, including the Applicant, who was appointed their Mukhtar -e -am and karkun by the remaining co -grantees. Thereafter the Applicant, both for himself and as Mukhtar -e -am of his co -grantees entered into separate agreements with the opposite -parties in respect of these plots. The case for the Applicant is that the said agreements were Naukari namas, whereby the opposite parties were allowed to cultivate the said plots as the servants of the Applicant and his co -grantees; their remuneration being payable in kind. The; opposite parties cultivated the said plots as the servants of the Applicant and his co -grantees, but in the beginning of 1965 they turned dishonest and began asserting their ownership ever then with the result that there was grave apprehension of breach of peace. Accordingly on 28 -2 -1965 the Applicant made an application to the Circle Inspector, Haldwani, bringing those facts to his notice and praying for necessary action. Thereafter on 20 -4 -1965, the police submitted a report to the SDM Haldwani for necessary action in respect of those plots Under Sec. 145 Code of Criminal Procedure, including their attachment. On this report the learned S.D.M. passed a preliminary order on 22 -4 -1965 and pending his decision attached the subject of dispute. By the same order he directed the parties to file their written statement, affidavits etc. as required under that section.

(3.) Both the parties filed a large number of affidavits and documents as regards their respective claims to actual possession of the subject of dispute. Briefly stated the case of the opposite -parties was (1) that they were in possession of those plots as bataidars and not as the servants of Applicants and the other co -grantees and (2) that as one of the co -grantees viz. Babu Ram; had executed a Mukhtarnama in respect of his one fourth share in favour of Ratan Singh, opposite party No. 5 the latter became a co -sharer with the Applicant and as such the proceedings under Sec. 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were misconceived against him. The learned S.D.M. did not give any finding on the second point. He, however, held that under the agreements referred to above the opposite parties were in possession of the subject of dispute as bataidars and not as the servants of the Applicant and the other co -grantees and consequently, passed an order under Sec. 145(6) Code of Criminal Procedure in the former's favour. The Applicant went up in revision and the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 5 -8 -1965, endorsed the view taken by the learned S.D.M. and dismissed the revision.