SARDARI LAL Vs. NARSINGH BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties raised this disputed under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, pertaining to a plot of land measuring about 18 marlas situated in Basti Guzan, Jullundur City. The Executive Magistrate, Jullundur, became seisin of the matter on a police report dated December 7, 1980. Both parties led evidence to support their case regarding possession. In the meantime, receiver had been appointed to take possession of the plot. When the matter was nearing conclusion, counsel for the first party, the petitioner herein made a statement before the Court on September 14, 1983, that there is no apprehension of breach of peace over the disputed vacant land between the parties and he did not want to proceed further in the case. Accordingly he requested for withdrawal of the case. This prayer was more or less reiterated on December 23, 1983, by making a statement that the lawyer had no instructions from his client. It seems that the Executive Magistrate did not take these statements of the counsel for the first party seriously, for the other party was sanguine that the dispute existed and it needed determination all the more when the receiver had taken possession of the plot who had to release it in favour of the successful party. It is in these circumstance that teh Executive Magistrate on January 6, 1984, pronounced in favour of the respondent, holding that he was in possession of the disputed land, sequally directing the receiver to put him in possession. The petitioner's effort to get this order upset from the Court of Session was unsuccessful. Now, he has approached this Court under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE only ground urged is that the order of the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction as there had remained no apprehension of breach of peace as intimated to him by the counsel for the petitioner. Supportingly, it is urged "that all disputes of property are not to be settled by a Magistrate under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, but only those disputes about possession in which there is likelihood of breach of peace. There can be no quarrel with this proposition, but it seems, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, to be misapplied. When one party asserted that there is no apprehension of breach of peace and the other disputes it, then obviously the Magistrate who has passed a preliminary order in the first instance is not obliged to accept the version of one of them and drop the proceedings." However it is open to him to otherwise come to the conclusion that apprehension of breach of peace has ceased to exist. Here no such thing happened as a learned Magistrate did not seemingly accept the word of the counsel for the first party. Additionally, he was required to deliver possession to some one on the dropping or finalisation of the proceedings, as the case may be. Here he concluded the proceedings by holding in favour of respondent. I find no reason which could impel me to cause interference in the said order even if on merits a different view was possible. Thus, findings no cause for inference, I dismiss this petition.