MATA RAM Vs. PHOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under section 435 Cr. P. C. against the order dated 31st August 1964 of the Magistrate 1st Class (Executive) Mohindergarh, holding that the land in dispute was in the possession of Phul Chand respondent during the period of two months immediately preceding the preliminary order dated 22nd August 1963.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that Shri Sawaran Singh A. S. I. Police Post Bardha, Police Station Satnali made a report to the Magistrate 1st Class (Executive), Mohindergarh to say that there was likelihood of a breach of the peace between the parties concerning the land bearing Khasra Nos. 73 and 43 situated within the limits of the revenue estate of Gopi in the said Police Station. The Magistrate 1st Class (Executive), passed the preliminary order on 22nd August 1963. Both the parties then put up written statements of their respective claims to actual possession of the subject of dispute. At the end of his enquiry, the Magistrate 1st Class (Executive) Mohindergarh, came to the conclusion that both the. Khasra Nos. stated above were in the actual possession of Shri Phul Chand respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of the Magistrate 1st Class is against facts and law and that the petitioner's evidence and affidavits were not properly appreciated. Phul Chand respondent's cultivation was recorded after the diagnal, which indicated that there was no change in cultivation, had been drawn up. The narration of cultivation in the name of Phul Chand was written in the ink different from that in which the diagnal was drawn Phul Chand contrived entries of cultivation in his favour in collusion with Patwari, Shri Sis Ram. Now that various land reforms measures have granted valuable rights to the tenants, there was no reason for the petitioner and his brother having surrendered possession of their tenancy voluntarily. The petitioner had made an application to the Naib Tehsildar asking for correction of Khasra Girdawari entries and the Magistrate 1st class (Executive) should have waited for the order of the Revenue Officer on that application. In support of his argument the learned counsel has cited Wazir Chand v. Dr. Rawel Chand A.I.R. 1947 Lah. 227.