RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 4.2.1998 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Pehowa whereby on an application/complaint filed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') by the respondents direction had been given to the petitioners to remove the hurdlers created by sowing gram crop in the passage provided in the revenue record and thus restricting the movements of the respondents as well as other villagers through that passage and also the order dated 6.7.1999 (Annexure-P.4) of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 1998 affirming the aforesaid order of the Sub Divisional Officer.

(2.) FAKIR Singh, Balwant Singh and Arjun Singh, applicants (respondents herein) claimed to be the permanent residents of Village Ramgarh Ror, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. According to them Gohar No. 176 (passage) as per revenue record of Village Ramgarh Ror had been in existence since consolidation. Ram Lal and Baru Ram, respondents (petitioners herein), who owned the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 3/1 and 3/2 of Khewat No. 125, Khatanui No. 309 in which abuts the Rectangle No. 91 on both sides of the path had dismantled the Gohar on 20.7.1997 by lifting the earth from the Gohar and filling the same with water as a result of which it was made unusable as a passage and caused hindrance to the movements of the applicants and other villagers. On these allegations jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Pehowa was invoked under Section 133 of the Code. It was also alleged that the Gram Panchayat, Ramgarh Ror through Subhash Chander, Sarpanch, who was cousin of Ram Lal and Baru Ram had colluded with them. On these premises prayer was made that the water from the above said path be got removed and earth be put back on the same passage for necessary use by the respondents as well as other residents.

(3.) THIS application was contested by the petitioners on the ground that there were passages located towards west and south of their land which had been in existence for the last 40 years and a civil suit had also been filed by them in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pehowa in which the parties had been directed to maintain status quo regarding the passage, consequently the present application was not maintainable. At the same time, it was admitted that their land was abutting the passage as stated in the application. In respect of the land mentioned in para 1 of the application, it was explained that passage located on the southern side of the above mentioned land extends upto the canal while the other passage located on the western side extends upto Village Ramgarh Ror. As there is no bridge on the canal, the passage closes at the canal and for that reason the stand of the applicants that they cross through this passage is incorrect. They denied that they had lifted any earth from the passage on 20.7.1997.