PHUMAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking indulgence of this Court to quash proceedings under Section 145 of the Code, pending before respondent No. 1 and subsequent order of attachment.

(2.) THE dispute in this case related to 102 Kanals 11 Marlas of land situated in Dera Kalan, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra which is recorded to be ownership of respondents No. 2 to 10. The petitioner Phuman Singh alleged that he had become owner of the land being in peaceful cultivating possession of the same for the last more than 20 years. His possession was without any kind of interruption and obstruction from the owners. He had a residential house in the disputed land as well as cattle shed, tubewell and a kotha. He filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief for permanent injunction with respect to this land and in that suit an order to maintain status quo regarding possession was passed on 15.3.1991. Since the entries in the revenue record were in the names of the respondents Gulshan Kumar and others, they also filed a suit for permanent injunction and moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction. Shri Balbir Singh, Sub Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra granted them temporary injunction vide order Annexure P -2 passed on 27.4.1991. Phuman Singh also filed an application for correction of entries in khasra girdawari and that application was pending before Tehsildar Thanesar.

(3.) AS both the parties claimed to be in possession of the land, calender under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted in the court of District Development and Panchayat Officer, Kurukshetra by Station House Officer, Police Station, Thanesar. After going through the written statements filed by the parties and hearing the counsel an order regarding attachment of the property was made and Tehsildar Kurukshetra was appointed as receiver of the land in dispute who was directed to take possession of the same. These proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure are being assailed by Phuman Singh petitioner on the ground that dispute regarding possession of the land was already pending in the civil Court, therefore, the proceedings were not competent. Respondent No. 1 had no right or jurisdiction to appoint a receiver to take possession of the land as in one civil suit temporary injunction had been granted and in the other suit order was passed to maintain status quo regarding possession. The appointment of receiver would cause dispossession of the party whosoever was in possession of the land and thereby the order of the Civil Court would be violated. Even otherwise the order passed by respondent No. 1 was mala fide and amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court. It was passed with the sole object of helping respondents No. 2 to 10 to take forcible possession of the property.