DHARAM CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 274 of 1973 and Criminal Original No. 142 -C of 1973.

(2.) FOR facility of reference, the brief facts of Cr. Revision No. 274 of 1973 are given. This petition is directed against the order dated September 29, 1971 passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr, in proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Cede, initiated by the Station House Officer, Nawanshahr. The petitioners asserted before the learned Magistrate that they took possession of the disputed land about or 10 years back and had been continuously cultivating the same on the other hand the respondents asserted that this land had been allotted in their favour by the Rehabilitation authorities. Pursuit to the order of allotment, the Tehsildar (Sales) -cum -Managing Officer ordered on March 16, 1971, that they should be put in possession of this land. Since this land was held under Cultivation, only symbolical possession was delivered to them. The petitioner preferred appeals against this order which were dismissed by the authorised Settlement Commissioner. After the decision in appeal, the respondents were able to secure possession of this land on May 29, 1971 with the help of the police. The learned trial Magistrate considered the affidavits filed by both the parties and came to the conclusion that since the respondents were put in possession by the police pursuant to the earlier order passed by the Managing Officer, their possession could not be held to be forcible and wrongful. Consequently, be did not deem it proper to restore the possession of the land to the petitioners. The petitioners filed a revision petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, made a detailed discussion of the history of the case, and about the merits be made the following observations: - -

(3.) I am of the considered view that the petitioners in this case were in possession of land on a date within two months before the date of the preliminary order passed by the learned Magistrate. Since they have not been dispossessed in execution of a lawful order or a decree passed by a competent authority or a Court, their dispossession from land in dispute was wrongful. It was also forcible because on the admitted facts of this case the respondents took the help of the police. In a situation like this, it was not necessary for the petitioners to appear on the scene and to have their ribs broken for the purpose of asserting that they have been forcibly dispossessed of this land. The learned trial Magistrate, in these circumstances, ought to have restored possession to them leaving the respondents to seek their remedy in accordance with law. By omitting to do so, the learned trial Magistrate has acted contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order under revision and direct that the petitioners be put in possession of the land in dispute.