KULBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.H.O., Police Station, Shambhu presented a Kalendra before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura arraigning the petitioners as the first-party and respondents 2 to 5 as the second-party wherein he stated that the parties have land of an extent of 24 bighas and 16 biswas (in the khasra numbers mentioned in the Kalendra hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute) in Village Dogawan. He has also stated that the land in dispute is jointly owned by both the parties, and that dispute with regard to the partition is pending in Court. He further stated that both the parties assert their title over this land in dispute and that suit is pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura. According to the S.H.O., a dispute with regard to the partition of this land can arise at any time resulting in loss of life and property, that no decision with regard to the partition has yet been given by the Court, and that some serious offence can be committed. Therefore, he prayed that till the Court gives a decision with regard to the partition of the land, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. be taken so that peace is not disturbed and no serious offence is committed. He also prayed for appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the land in dispute.

(2.) ON the basis of this Kalendra, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura observed in the preliminary order on 24.6.1996 that on the basis of the report and the statement made by the S.H.O. that there is dispute regarding the possession of the land in dispute and that there is apprehension of breach of peace regarding the possession of the same, he was satisfied that there is a dispute regarding the possession of the land in dispute which is likely to cause breach of peace. He, therefore, ordered the parties to appear on 15.7.1996 and put in their claim and the evidence.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 2 to 5 filed a reply admitting that they themselves and the petitioners are the co-owners of the land in dispute and also that a suit for permanent injunction is pending. The allegation in the petition regarding the grant of temporary injunction as alleged by the petitioners has also been admitted by the respondents 2 to 5. But the respondents allege that they are in physical possession of land according to their share, and they deny that they attempted to alienate the land in excess of their share. According to these respondents, the petitioners tried forcibly to take possession of the land from them and they being ladies with no male member in the house, a report under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was submitted. But the respondents have also stated that the petitioners are also in possession of the land according to their shares.