MATHURA AND OTHERS Vs. RAMKRIPAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners/non-applicant to set aside the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai Distt. Panna MP in Criminal Case No. 56/2017 setting aside the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by SDM, Pawai in case No. 19/ Section 145 / 2015 in which on the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 145 , the SDM passed the order in favour of the petitioner/non-applicant and to the context of disputed land, it is directed that the respondent did not interfere in the possession of petitioners/non-applicant.

(2.) According to case, the respondent No. 1-Ramkripal submitted an application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. before the SDM Pawai on 22.11.2016. It is alleged by him that the he is owner of land Khasra Nos. 2/1, 2/2, 3, 4/1, 4/2, 145/1, 145/2, 206, 207, 231, 232, 233, 239, 226, 251 total ad-measuring area 5.25 hectare situated at gram Jhimari. The aforesaid land are registered in the name of Deshrani @ Girja Devi in revenue record. He further stated that after the death of Deshrani the respondent No. 1 and his brother are in possession of that land since 27-28 years. Petitioners/non-applicants are interfering in the possession of land in khasra No. 2/1, 2/2, 3, 4/1, 4/2. They are creating nuisance to take possession of said land, so there is probability to disturb peace by them, therefore, proceeding be initiated. Thereafter, considering the allegation and facts of the case, Sub Divisional Magistrate passed preliminary order. Both the parties adduced their evidence and it is found that petitioners/non-applicants are in possession of the disputed land then the SDM affirmed the possession of petitioner and directed the respondents not to interfere in the possession of petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent party filed a criminal revision against the order dated 12.09.2017 and the learned additional Sessions Judge allowed the same by passing the order dated 09.08.2018.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they the learned Revisional Court erred in appreciating the fact that the petitioners/non-applicant have purchased the disputed land through the legal heirs of the deceased Girja Devi by a registered sale deed and they are also in possession of said land. There is no material available on the record upon which the learned Additional Sessions Judge can interfere on the order passed by the SDM, so order of learned Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous and unjustifiable. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners/non-applicants prays for allowing this petition by setting aside the order dated. 09.08.2018.