SHASHI BAI Vs. POORANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. house No. 646 an adjacent Bageecha admeasuring 0.81 acres of Khasra No. 411/2 and 43/3 was attached by the Executive Magistrate and the present petitioner Anantram was appointed a receiver with the content of the parties. Originally Anantram was a member of party No.2, Pooranlal etc. but subsequently engaged his own counsel filed an independent reply led evidence and cross -examined certain disputes about the right of way the Executive Magistrate by his order observed that the other party has a right to pass through the disputed land. The said order was challenged in revision and was set -aside. Later on in Criminal Revision No. 190/82, this Court by its judgment dated 6.7.82 set -aside the order of the learned Session Judge which was passed by him in Criminal Revision No.22/82. This Court had further observed that the directions given by the City Magistrate on 30.1.82 and 27.2.82 shall stand restored. Thereafter, the matter was finally denied by the Executive Magistrate and he by his order dated 20.1.83 held that the present petitioner was in possession of the property and the party No.1 i.e. present respondent shall not disturb his possession over the house and the land detailed above. The matter was taken up in Revision before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 5/83 who by his order dated 22.1.83 directed the parties to maintain status -quo and by order dated 19.2.83 observed that since receivership has been terminated on 20.1.83, there was no question of maintenance of status -quo. Ultimately the said Revision was dismissed and the matter came up before this Court in Misc. Criminal Case No. 504/83.

(2.) THIS Court by its judgment dated 4.5.83 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 504/83 allowed the petition and set -aside the order of City Magistrate passed on 20.1.83 and remanded back the matter to him for deciding the matter afresh as per direction contained in the said order. The matter was again decided by the Executive Magistrate on 26.12.83. After appreciating the rival contentions and after going through the evidence available on record the learned Magistrate found that certain Civil Suits were pending between the parties in which Bhagele had prayed for a decree of possession. The learned Executive Magistrate observing that within two months before the date of passing of preliminary order. Anantram was in possession. He also observed that party No. 1, Veeranlal and party No.2, Pooranlal may get their dispute settled before the Civil Court. He directed both the parties not to commit breach of peace. In Para No.8 of its order, the Execution Magistrate observed that Anantram was in possession of the property since 1953 and none has contradicted his contention. Despite the order of the Magistrate restraining others from interfering the possession of the present petitioner, others started interfering with the possession of the petitioner, therefore, he had filed this letter petition complaining of his pathetic condition, the high handedness of respondents and inaction of the police. After registration of the said letter as a petition, notices were issued to the respondents and their reply were received. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 contended that they have not dispossessed the petitioner while the respondent No.6 had stated that despite the orders of the Executive Magistrate the breach of peace was likely to be committed, therefore, the petitioner and others were arrested under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. were drawn.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties, I am of the opinion that this Court must grant a direction to the Executive Magistrate to comply with its earlier order dated 26.12.83 and to enforce the same.