RAJBIR SINGH Vs. MAHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, seeks the quashing of proceedings drawn by respondent No. 3, City Magistrate-cum-Executive Magistrate, Narnual district Mahendergarh, under Sections 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 Maha Singh initiated the case before the City Magistrate/Executive Magistrate (respondent No. 3) who assumed jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code and passed a preliminary order. The learned City Magistrate also ordered attachment of the disputed land with standing crops thereon and appointed a Receiver in respect of the crops. The petitioners Rajbir Singh, Ved Parkash and Mohinder Singh sons of Beg Raj and Randhir Singh and Jaipal Singh sons of Bahadur Singh, all residents of village Bapdoli tehsil Narnaul district Mahendergarh claimed themselves to be the owners to the land in dispute and they also alleged their possession. The petitioners have alleged that the impugned order dated 13.3.1996 passed by respondent No. 3 appointing the Receiver of the attached land and crop is prima facie illegal and totally without jurisdiction. Respondent No. 1 Maha Singh filed application for initiating proceedings under section 145 of the Code on 12.3.1996 by alleging wrong and distorted facts. The true facts were concealed and suppressed by the respondent No. 1. The copy of the application filed by respondent No. 1 under sections 145/146 of the Code has been annexed as Annexure P-1. The dispute related to the land comprised in Khewat No. 90, Khatauni No. 114 Rectangle and Killa Nos. 2/15(3-17), 16(8-0), 25(8-0), 6/23/2(3-16), 24(7-11), 10/23/1(2-18), 13/3/(7-12), 8/1(2-7), 9/1(3-2), 12/4(0-2), 28/16/2(3-16) and 7/1(4-0), having total area of 55 kanal and 1 marla situated in the revenue estate of village Bapdoli, aforesaid. According to the averments made in the application (Annexure P-1), one Sheo Chand son of Ruda caste Jat resident of Bapdoli was the owner in possession of said land. It was alleged that respondent No. 6 of the said application, namely, Chhotu Ram son of Shiv Lal obtained a fictitious gift deed in his favour by impersonation and apparently executed by Sheo Chand aforesaid. The gift deed is dated 17.3.1989 bearing No. 2110. A mutation order was also obtained on the basis of the gift deed. The respondent No. 7 of the said application, namely, Sunil Kumar Grewal, a minor adopted son of Sheo Chand challenged the gift deed in Civil Suit No. 693 dated 17.2.1994 in the Court of Sub Judge, Narnual. The said civil suit was decreed on 23.11.1994 and the gift deed and mutation order passed on the basis of gift deed were set aside. The applicant Maha Singh, who is respondent No. 1 in the petition, alleged his possession over the land in dispute as tenant Giar Marusi under Sheo Chand aforesaid. The entries in the revenue records, however, were continuing in the name of respondent No. 6 (Chhotu Ram aforesaid) in the column of cultivation, which were wrong and contrary to law. An effort was made by Maha Singh for the correction of Khasra Girdawri entry in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narnaul, which was accepted by order dated 1.8.1994 and the Khasra Girdawri entry was corrected in favour of Maha Singh. The respondent No. 6, Chhotu Ram aforesaid, filed an appeal against the order of correction of the Khasra Girdawri, which was pending. During the pendency of the civil suit No. 693 of 1994, the respondent No. 6, namely, Chhotu Ram, who was defendant No. 1 in the civil suit, transferred the land in dispute to respondents Nos. 1 to 5, namely, Rajbir, Ved Parkash, Mohinder Singh, Randhir Singh and Jagpal Singh vide registered sale deeds dated 24.3.1994 and 25.4.1994. The sale deeds were alleged to be void and without any valid and legal authority and were hit by the principle of lis pendens and also in view of the setting aside of the gift deed. Consequently, the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, aforesaid, had got no valid title over the disputed land. However, notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 filed a civil suit and obtained an order of ad interim injunction against Maha singh, which was challenged by Maha Singh in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, who passed an order about status quo on 15.11.1994. Sheo Chand aforesaid also accepted respondent No. 7 Sunil Kumar Grewal as the owner of the land in dispute by giving it through a mutual family settlement. A decree dated 28.1.1995 was passed by the Civil Court in favour of respondent No. 7 in civil suit No. 52 of 1995. Maha Singh claimed his tenancy Gair Marusi rights under the respondent No. 7. The grievance of the applicant Maha Singh before the City Magistrate/Executive Magistrate, Narnaul, was that the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 as also respondents Nos. 6 and 7 of the application, in collusion with each other, were bent upon disturbing peace by threatening to take forcible and illegal possession of the disputed land from the applicant Maha Singh as a result of which there was a reasonable apprehension of breach of peace. Initially, proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code were initiated at the instance of the police against the said respondents Nos. 1 to 5, but that did not deter these respondents from interfering in the possession of the applicant Maha Singh in respect of the land in dispute. Subsequent instances of interference with the possession of the applicant Maha Singh were mentioned in the application with a prayer for initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code and appointment of a Receiver under Section 146 of the Code was prayed for.

(3.) THE petitioners have impugned the proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code and the orders dated 13.3.1996 passed by the respondent No. 3, as mentioned already. The grounds on which the proceedings are sought to be quashed and the impugned orders are sought to be set aside are that the civil dispute regarding the ownership/possession of the disputed land is already pending in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and in view of the pending civil case, the Executive Magistrate cannot under the law draw and maintain proceedings under sections 145/146 of the Code. The petitioners also contended that they were rightful owners of the disputed land being the bona fide purchasers for due consideration and they took physical possession of the disputed land; and since then they had been contimuonsly cultivating the land. The learned Executive Magistrate cannot, under the garb of factually incorrect averments regarding the danger of breach of peace, dispossess the petitioners by appointing a Receiver of the land with standing crops.