MAHESH KUMAR Vs. LOKENDRA NATH AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Arun Tandon, learned Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.

(2.) The dispute related to plot No. 1601, area 1.81 acres. Admittedly the land belonged to Thakur Dhanushdhari Ji Maharaj Virajman Temple, Ata. First party Mahesh Kumar claimed that his father, Shambhu Dayal, was Manager of properties belonging to the trust and was in possession of the same. The opposite parties claimed their possession over the disputed properties. It appears from the record that a civil suit was filed for removal of Lokendra Nath from managership of the properties of the said trust and a final decree was passed against Lokendra Nath directing his removal from the managership of the said property belonging to the trust. In the revenue proceedings and proceedings before the consolidation authorities, name of Shambhu Dayal was ordered to be recorded in the revenue records as Manager of the properties of the said trust. Admittedly the decree of the civil court has not yet been executed and the matter relating to mutation of the name of Shambhu Dayal in the revenue records is pending before the High Court.

(3.) The learned Magistrate while deciding the question of possession considered the civil court decree in favour of the applicant's father, Shambhu Dayal and also directions of the revenue and consolidation authorities that Shambhu Dayal's name may be mutated in the revenue records as Manager of the properties of the aforesaid trust. The revisional court set aside the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the civil court decree has not yet been executed and possession has not yet been delivered to Shambhu Dayal and that the matter relating to mutation of the name of Shambhu Dayal is still in dispute in the writ petition pending before the High Court. The revisional court set aside the order of the learned Magistrate but did not pass any consequential order and did not give any specific direction as to whom the possession may be delivered. The learned Sessions Judge should have sent the case back to the Magistrate concerned for decision afresh for giving a specific finding on the question of possession, in view of the observations made in the judgment and also in view of the final outcome of the civil litigation and litigation before the revenue and consolidation authorities. An order under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is subject to the decision of a competent civil or revenue court, as the case may be. The learned Magistrate shall give opportunity to the parties to show if the decree passed by the civil court has been executed or not and if the actual physical possession in consequence to the said decree has been delivered to Shambhu Dayal or Mahesh Kumar.