BARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contour of the facts and material, which requires to be noticed, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out, from the record, is that, in the wake of complaint of complainant Harjit Singh son of Niranjan Singh, respondent No.2 (for brevity the complainant), the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC were initiated by the police. After completion of the formalities, the Sub Divisional Magistrate (in short the SDM), Tapa attached the land in question and appointed the Tehsildar as its Receiver, in the exercise of powers under Section 146(1) Cr.PC, by virtue of impugned order dated 18.7.2011 (Annexure P2), which, in substance, is as under:- After perusing the written statements of both the parties and after hearing both of them and keeping in view the report dated 17.02.2009 of SHO, Police Station Tapa and the statement of SHO PS Rure Ke Kalan & keeping in view the statement of Harjit Singh Party No.1, I have reached the conclusion that there is a lot of conflict between the parties regarding the possession of land in dispute bearing khewat No.276 Khatauni No.641, Khasra No.119//14/2/6-3 situated in the area of Rure Ke Kalan-A and there is apprehension of loss of life and limb between the parties regarding this Criminal Misc. No. M-31784 of 2011 -2- dispute and possibility cannot be ruled out regarding some serious crime being committed between the parties at any time. THErefore, I Paramjit Singh Padda, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tapa in exercise of my powers direct U/s 146(1) Cr.PC that Tehsildar Tapa, who is hereby appointed as Receiver, should take possession of the land in dispute measuring 6 kanals 3 marlas being Khewat No.276, Khatauni No.641, Khasra No.119//2/6-3 situated in the area of Rure Ke Kalan. Pronounced.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order (Annexure P2), the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, being not maintainable, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, by way of order dated 14.9.2011 (Annexure P3).

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.