KARTAR SINGH Vs. GURMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARTAR Singh and others who constitute a managing committee to conduct the affairs of Dharamshala at Jatike have come up in this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kapurthala dated 2-5-1990 and of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala dated 15-11-90.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties relates to the land situated at village Jatike and Sangojia. measuring 47 Kanals 12 Marlas, which is Muafi Land, given for the maintenance of the Dharamshala. Originally Harnam Singh was working as Sewadar of the Dharamshala. After his death, Gurmukh Singh respondent started working as such. He, however, did not apply to become Mohatmim of the Dharamshala, but he tried to convert the landed property to his own use and claimed ownership of it. The village respectables requested him a number of times to carry out the old tradition and to spend the income of the landed property on the Dharam but he did not comply with the same. A committee consisting of the petitioners was then formed and possession of the land was taken over. Since then they have been in continuous possession of the said land. On 20-4-90 Station House Officer of Dhilwan filed a calendra for taking action under section 145 of the Cr.P.C., to restrain both the sides from interfering in possession of the land. In this calendra it was specifically mentioned that the petitioners had been in continuous possession of this land and wheat crop was sown by them. In a civil suit instituted by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge I Class, vide its order dated 30-4-87, the said court directed the maintenance of status quo regarding possession and this suit was still pending The respondent had filed an application before the District Collector for his appointment as Mohatmim of the land in dispute, but the same had been declined vide order dated 26.2.89. On the basis of the calendra filed, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, had, vide his order, dated 2-5-90, directed the attachment of the disputed property and appointed Sh. Y.D. Saini, Tehsildar (Circle, Revenue Officer), Kapurthala as Receiver and directed him to take possession of the disputed land; Revision filed against this order was dismissed on 15-11-90 by the Addl. Sessions Judge. These orders are challenged on the basis that the petitioners had been in peaceful possession of the disputed land and had sown wheat crop in Rabi 1990 and. there was already a civil. suit pending in which maintenance of status quo bed been ordered. In case the Sub Divisional Magistrate was satisfied that there was a dispute about the crop, only security proceedings could be initiated. The finding of the Addl. Sessions Judge that there was a dispute about possession of the land was incorrect.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have already lost in revision before 'the Addl. Sessions Judge and a second revision was not competent. For that reason, no special grounds are made out for interference under section 482 Cr.P.C.