SANT DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners Prem Pal and his wife Smt. Shakuntla have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuing directions to respondent No. 3 to hand over the possession of the property in question to them in compliance with the orders dated 30.11.1994 and 3.4.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that there was a dispute about the possession of the property in question i.e. No. 908/B, situated in Arjan Nagar, Nirmal Kutia, Jalandhar between one Khushi Ram, father of Smt. Shakuntla on the one hand and one Kulwant Rai Gill, who claimed himself to be the General Secretary of Balmiki Sabha, Jalandhar. On an application moved by the aforesaid Khushi Ram about the unnecessary interference in his possession by Kulwant Rai Gill, a Calendra was prepared by the police under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and presented in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2 herein) on 8.4.1986. After considering the police report and the respective stands of the parties, the Executive Magistrate vide order dated 23.4.1986 attached the property in question under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and appointed SHO, Police Station, Division No. 3, Jalandhar (respondent No. 3 herein) as a receiver of the property under Section 146 Cr.P.C. with the directions that all the rooms situated in the property in question be sealed until the matter was decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction.

(3.) IT has also been averred that Kulwant Rai Gill (the second party) also filed a suit for permanent injunction is the Civil Court regarding this property claiming the same as an evacuee property belonging to the Muslims as transferred by the Government to the Punjab Wakf Board. It was alleged that a Balmiki temple was constructed over the land in question and Khushi Ram was kept as a Sewadar by the Balmiki Sabha. After his death, the property in question was being looked after by one Babu Ram, Sewadar. Thus, it was alleged that the petitioners were having no concern with the possession of the property in question.