SHEO RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. I. Jafri, J. Sheo Raj Singh, Desh Raj Singh, Bir Singh, sons of Kaley, Chandraman, Birbal and Bhagwana, sons of Nanki filed revision No. 2209 of 1982 in this Court praying that the operation of the order, dated 7-9-82 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar in proceedings under Sections 145/146, Cr. P. C. in Case No. 1 of 1981 be set aside and also the aforesaid proceedings be quashed. The revision as admitted by this Court and the operation of the aforesaid order-was stayed on 10-12-1982. Thereafter, the applicants filed an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying that the revision be converted into an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The application was allowed and the aforesaid revision was converted and treated as an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. on 10-12-1982 by this Court.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. as admitted by the parties are that the land in dispute was owned by Ramzani, Alim Uddin and Allah Diya who were brothers. Upon the death of Allah Diya, the name of his widow Smt. Sayeedan was mutated in his place. THE dispute regarding the actual possession over the land in question arose between Smt. Sayeedan on one hand and Alim Uddin and Ramzani on the other hand which resulted into initiation of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. on 16-5-1966 by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. THE land in dispute was also attached on 19-5-1966 and it was given in the Supuroagi of the Supurdar. Ultimately, to Sub-Divisional Magistrate con cluded the proceedings by holding that Ramzani and Alim Uddin were in actual possession over the land in dispute and the disputed property was directed to be released in favour of Ramzani and Alim Uddin and as such, the land in dispute was delivered to Ramzani and Alim Uddin on 20-10-1969. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Smt. Sayeedan and her two sons Amir and Nura preferred revision before the Sessions Judge. THE revisional court took the view that the land in dispute was the joint property and the parties were in joint possession of the same and, therefore, the revisional court referred the matter to the High Court under Section 438, Cr. P. C. (Old Code) for settii g aside the order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate as the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C were not maintainable. THE High Court accepted the reference by its orde. dated 9-1-1982 and had set aside the aforesaid proceedings as not maintainable. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid revision, circumstances under went a complete change inasmuch as Smt. Sayeedan alientated her share in the land in dispute though a sale-deed, dated 29-4-1970 in favour of Smt. Ram Sakhi, Smt. Santosh Devi and Smt. Usha Devi, but the name of Smt. Sayeedan continued to be recorded in the revenue records. Again by executing another registered sale-deed, dated 21-1-1981. Smt. Sayeedan sold the entire property including the shares in the property owned by Ramzani and Alim Undin in favour of the applicants Shiv Raj Singh and others. Consequent to alienation of the property in their favour, applicants Sheo Raj Singh and others applied for mutation of their names in the said property but the mutation proceedings were abated as by the time, the village Sikandrabad came under the operation of U. P. C. H. Act. Alimuddin, however, Alimuddin died thereafter, leaving Ramzani as his heir and legal representative.

(3.) THE applicants had, therefore, challenged the validity of the order, dated 7-9-1982 passed by the learned Magistrate by filing the present applica tion under Section 482, Cr. P. C. which was originally filed under Sections 397/401, Cr. P. C. by way of revision (Criminal Revision No. 2209 of 1982 ). As slated above, the said revision was subsequently converted and treated as an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. by the High Court. This court while admitting the aforesaid Revision No. 2209 of 1982, had staved the operation of the order, dated 7-6-1982 passed under Section 145, Cr. P. C. by the Magistrate, directing the parties to file their respective written state ments on 21-9-1982. However, the disputed property continued to remain with the Supurdagi of Bhagwana, son of Madan till now.