AMAN Vs. NANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners/non-applicant to set aside the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 240/2018 whereby the Sessions Judge allowed the revision presented by the respondent and set aside the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baldeogarh, District Tikamgarh in case No. 44/Criminal/145/2018, in which Sub Divisional Magistrate allowed the petition under Section 145(4)(6) Cr.P.C and gave possession to petitioners/non-applicant of the disputed land.

(2.) Respondents/applicants filed a petition under Section 145(4)(6) of Cr.P.C. of Cr.P.C. it is alleged by them that they are owner of half part of land ad-measuring area 1.619 hectare in Khasra No. 159/2 situated at village Budora, Tehsil Baledeogarh District Tikamgarh. Petitioners/non-applicant were trying to take possession Cr.R. No. 3443/2019 of said land, therefore, there is probability to disturb the peace by them, so action can be taken. Thereafter, Sub Divisional Magistrate found prima facie case and issued notice to the petitioners/non- applicants, after inquiry Sub Divisional Magistrate found that petitioners/non-applicants have possession of disputed land. Therefore, he passed the order in favour of the petitioners/non- applicants. Thereafter respondents filed a criminal revision before First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the petition on 16.04.2019 and set aside the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baldeogarh.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners/non-applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh is bad in law as same was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/non-applicants. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge directed to issue the notice to the petitioners/non-applicants for hearing but notice has not been served upon them but service report has been accepted by the learned Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners/non-applicants did not sign on that summons or notice, some person has fabricated the signature of petitioners/non-applicants, moreover the petitioner No.1/Aman puts thumb impression due to his illiteracy. Therefore, impugned order deserves to be quashed. Apart from this, it is crystal clear that the disputed land was settled by the State Government in favour of petitioner's father on 23.01.1976, since then the petitioners and their father have been cultivating the said land. Respondents are interfering Cr.R. No. 3443/2019 in their possession. The matter traveled upto this Court and the Additional Commissioner passed the detailed order in favour of petitioners/non-applicants on 20.12.2016. The respondents are moving applications one after other and making false complaints against the petitioners/non-applicants and also making all possible efforts to take the possession. The Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the order on 17.12.2018 on the basis of fact and legal principle of law. Therefore, there is no material available on the record on which learned First Additional Sessions Judge could interfere the order, so order of learned First Additional Sessions Judge is erroneous and unjustifiable, Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners/non- applicants prays for allowing this petition and set aside the order dated. 16.04.2019.