RAM SHANKER TEWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision has been filed by Ram Shanker Tewari and Ishwar Saran.

(2.) A report was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gonda, by the police to the effect that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to certain land and there was an apprehension of breach of peace on that account between them. On this report being received, the Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Code of Criminal Procedure, on 25-1-1962 directing at the same time attachment of the disputed property. After an enquiry the same Magistrate finally held that the opposite parties Mohammad Ismail, Maqbool Ahmad and Badrudduja were in possession on the date of the preliminary order and directed release of the property from attachment in their favour. The present applicant No. 1 Ram Shanker Tewari then filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda. The revision was, however, dismissed and, therefore, he comes to this Court.

(3.) IT was submitted that during pendency of the proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, Ram Shanker Tewari had filed a suit in the Revenue Court against Opposite Parties 2 to 4 under Section 209 read with Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act with the allegation that he was exclusive bhumidhar of the disputed land and was in exclusive possession over it. The Judicial Officer rejected this contention and held that the parties were co-bhumidhars and that the joint property was in actual possession of Opposite Parties 2 to 4. The suit for ejectment was dismissed and a declaration that the parties were co-bhumidhars was granted. This judgment was upheld by the Board of Revenue on 7-41965. It was argued that the Magistrate should not have passed final order releasing the property in favour of Opposite Parties 2 to 4 in view of the said decision of the Revenue Court. Reliance for this submission was placed on the case of Bhinka v. Charan Singh The argument is without force. What was held by the Supreme Court in that case was that the life of an order passed by the Magistrate tinder Section 145 (6), Code of Criminal Procedure, is coterminous with the passing of a decree by a Civil Court and the moment a Civil Court makes an order of eviction, it displaces the order of the Criminal Court. In the present case admittedly the Revenue Court had rejected the applicant's prayer for a decree for ejectment against the Opposite Parties and merely passed a declaratory decree and, therefore, the final order of the Magistrate under Section 145 (6), Code of Criminal Procedure, does not come to an end by reason of the decree passed by the Revenue Court.