RAM NARESH SINGH Vs. SHYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 preferred by the petitioner is directed against an order dated 1st April, 2011 passed in Criminal Revision No. 45/11 by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, (M.P.), setting aside thereby an order dated 28th February 2011 in Criminal Case No. 113/09 x 145, Criminal Procedure Code passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bhind and remanding the case to him for passing an order afresh after proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The trial Court by the order dated 28th February 2011 held the petitioner/party No.l to be in possession over the disputed land and it was directed that he be not dispossessed without following due process of law.

(2.) The facts, in brief just for the decision of this revision petition is that the petitioner Ram Naresh Singh purchased a plot No. 46-A admeasuring 30 ft. x 30 ft., total in area 900 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No. 751,752, 88, 728/1, 729, situated at Sita Nagar Colony, B-block, Bharoli Road by a registered sale-deed dated dated 21st October, 2002 from one Smt. Chhoti Bitiya and since then he is in possession over the plot. It is stated that when he started construction on the plot in question, respondent Shyam Singh raised an objection and interfered into his possession. The matter was reported to the police and the petition under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed before the Court of SDM Bhind. The respondent claimed his title over the land in dispute from the time of his ancestors. It was pleaded that he was having the possession on the said land. Both the parties filed the certified copies of the documents showing their ownership over the disputed land and witnesses on both side were examined before the trial Court. From the evidence it had come on record that there was a dispute about identification of the land. Hence, the trial Court directed measurement of the disputed land by the help of Superintendent of lands record Bhind. The respondent objected to that report of measurement. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties found that the petitioner was in possession over the land prior to two months and while holding so, the impugned order was passed. On revision against the same order by the respondent Shyam Singh, the Revisional Court concluded that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of both the parties and therefore the case was remanded back for fresh consideration by the trial Court. Hence the revision before this Court.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the revisional Court is in a mechanical manner without taking into consideration the provisions of section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is contended that from the material on record it is apparent that before sale, the disputed land was in possession of the Society and after sale of the property, the ownership as well the possession was transferred to the purchaser. It is submitted that the respondent taking the advantage of neighborhood is making obstruction in construction over the plot owned and trying to dispossess the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional Court is illegal and without application of mind and hence deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it is prayed that by allowing the revision, the order passed by the revisional Court be set aside and the order passed by the learned SDM Court be restored.