KALI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KALI Ram, petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6.6.2002 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat, respondent No. 2, whereby land measuring 76 Kanals, 6 Marlas situated in Village Kurda, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind was attached on the basis of calendera filed by the S.H.O., Police Station, Madlauda for proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) wherein the Naib Tehsildar, Madlauda was appointed as Receiver to get the land in question cultivated and deposit the income of the land in the proper account.

(2.) IN order to focus the controversy involved in the present petition, essential facts have to be noticed. Land measuring 76 Kanals 6 Marlas fully described in the Calendera (copy of which is Annexure P.2) had been recorded to be owned by Kali Ram, Badlu Ram, Phul Singh, Bani Singh and Fateh Singh sons of Rati Ram in equal shares as per entries of Jamabandi in question. Sunil Dutt, who had been arrayed as second party in the Calendera and respondent No. 4 in the present petition had purchased 11 Kanals of land out of the share in the land owned by Bani Singh. After its purchase, Sunil Dutt wanted to cultivate the land purchased to the extent of his share but Sant Ram arrayed as party No. 1 in the Calendera and respondent No. 5 in the present petition did not allow Sunil Dutt to enter the land purchased by him. Sant Ram son of Kali Ram is one of the co-sharers in the land. On 15.4.2002, Sant Ram and Pale Ram, sons of Kali Ram of the first party and Sunil Dutt and Brahm Dutt of the second party had been challaned under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code as both the parties were adamant to kill each other on the question of sowing and cultivating the land. Apprehending breach of peace in respect of the land in dispute, the S.H.O., Police Station, Madlauda filed a Calendera under Section 145 of the Code in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Panipat basing his assertion that the dispute related to the land measuring 76 Kanals 6 Marlas. After filing of the Calendera, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panipat gave notice to both the parties and afforded opportunity to lead evidence. Taking into account the evidence led by the parties before him, he came to the conclusion that there was apprehension of dispute between the parties on account of the land in question and finding substance in the allegations made in the Calendera filed by SHO, Police Station, Madlauda and the matter being of urgent nature, the land in question was attached under Section 145 read with Section 146 of the Code and Naib Tehsildar, Madlauda was appointed as Supardar to get the land cultivated at his own level and deposit the income derived therefrom in the proper account. Kali Ram, who is son of Rati Ram had filed the present petition to challenge this order.

(3.) THERE is no factual dispute between the parties before me that land measuring 76 Kanals 6 Marlas fully described in the Calendera filed by the SHO, Police Station, Madlauda (Annexure-2) was jointly owned by Kali Ram, Badlu Ram, Phul Singh, Bani Singh and Fateh Singh sons of Rati Ram as per entries of the Jamabandi for the relevant period. It is also not disputed before me that Sunil Dutt had purchased 11 Kanals of land as per sale deed bearing Vasika No. 921/1 dated 11.10.2001 from Bani Singh, who is recorded as one of the co-sharers in the total land. Mutation No. 1517 has also been sanctioned in the name of Sunil Dutt thereafter. The dispute as per parties arrayed in the Calendera, namely, Sant Ram and Sunil Dutt, party No. 1 and No. 2 respectively arose because Sunil Dutt claimed that after purchase of the land he had cultivated and sown the crop on the land comprised in Killa No. 96/24 min east (3-0), 25(8-0) measuring 11 Kanals in all and the rest of the land had been lying vacant at the spot and thus the first party had never cultivated the same. This stand was disputed by the first party as it was asserted by him that he had been in possession of the disputed land and the sale deed is a forged document. It was also not disputed before me that Civil Suit No. 143 of 2002 dated 17.5.2002 was pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat which had been filed by Kali Ram, plaintiff against Sunil Dutt, Badlu Ram, Phul Singh, Fateh Singh and Bani Singh, arrayed as defendant No. 1 to 5 respectively. In the said case, defendant Nos. 2 to 5 were proceeded ex parte on 24.5.2002 while defendant No. 1 refused to accept the service. The case was posted for 8.6.2002 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding the possession over the suit property. It was not disputed that order of status quo is still in operation. In this suit the plaintiff had claimed the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. The copy of the plaint of that suit had not been placed on record by either of the parties before me.