TARABI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the orders dated 1-12-98 and 22-5-99 passed by the S. D. M. , Rampur in Case No. 13 of 1997 under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and Spe cial Judge, Rampur in Criminal Revision No. 194 of 1997 by which they have held the opposite party No. 2 to be in posses sion of the disputed agricultural land.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. S. Verma, learned counsel for the op posite parties and perused the record.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the matter in great details and has held that after the death of Smt. Allahrakhi in the year 1976, the name of the petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute and she was cultivating the land. That the petitioner filed a suit under Sections 229-B and 209, U. P. Z. A and L. R. Act, which was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed, but in revision the matter has been remanded back and is still pending. Opposite party No. 2 is the recorded tenure-holder and no order has been passed in the suit in favour of the petitioners. THE suit under Sections 229-B and 209, U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was pending and in the meantime an ex. pane order was obtained from the Civil Court onl5-3-89. That order was without jurisdiction. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly ignored that decision. A decision without jurisdiction can be ignored in proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C.